- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7162 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA D/O H.A. HUTCHAPPA, W/O K. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O SIDDARUDH NAGAR, D. K. SHIVAKUMAR COLLEGE, BEHIND NEAR SHANKAR MUTT, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 301. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PREMAMMA W/O LATE PRAHLADAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O RAMESHWARA VILLAGE, BELAGUTTHI HOBLI, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577223. 2. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O. LATE NARASAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O RAMESHWARA VILLAGE, BELAGUTTHI HOBLI, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577223. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 3. SRI RUDRAPPA S.N. S/O. LATE NARASAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O JIGANI VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561101. 4. SRI ANNAPPA S/O. LATE NARASAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O CHIRADONI VILLAGE, CHENNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577231. 5. SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O. LATE NARASAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217. 6. SRI HALADAPPA S/O LATE NARASAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217. 7. SRI SHIVAMURTHI S/O LATE NARASAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217. 8. SRI KUMARSWAMY S/O LATE NARASAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217. 9. SMT. BHAGIRATHI W/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217. 10. SMT. KENCHAMMA W/O. LATE SHYMAPPA MUGALI, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O KATHIJJERE VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-577101. 11. SMT. SUBHADRAMMA @ PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE SHYAMANNA @ SANNAMANJAPPA MAJOR BY AGE, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVENEGERE DISTRICT-577217. 12. SMT. CHANNAMMA D/O. LATE HUCHAPPA, W/O. SRI M. BABU MAJOR BY AGE, R/O HONNALI SAEVER KERI, HONNALI TOWN, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577221. 13. SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O. LATE SHIVAPPA (S/O LATE HUTCHAPPA) MAJOR BY AGE, R/O. DURGIGUDI EXTENSION, HONNALI TOWN, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577221. 14. SRI CHANNAPPA S/O. LATE HUCHAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/O HONNALI SAEVER KERI, HONNALI TOWN, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577221. 15. SRI H.B. MANJAPPA S/O. B. GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O DODDAKERE, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 HONNALI TOWN, GOVINAKOVI 2ND HOBLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANDRANATH R. PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-15) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.257/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR, SITTING AT HONNALI, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 12.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.257/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Harihar sitting at Honnalli ('trial Court' for short), whereby I.A.No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against defendant No.15 came to be rejected. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 Brief facts: 2. The plaintiff/appellant instituted the suit in O.S.No.257/2024 seeking declaration that she along with defendants Nos.12 to 14 had perfected title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and consequential permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that her grandfather, Karisiddappa, had initially obtained the suit property on lease from one Marulappa and subsequently, entered into an oral agreement of sale, around the year 1942. It is contended that the possession continued with Karisiddappa and thereafter, with Huchappa, the father of the plaintiff, and subsequently, with the plaintiff and defendant Nos.12 to 14, continuously for several decades. It is stated that though the legal heirs of Marulappa did not execute a registered sale deed, they never objected to the possession of the plaintiff’s family. Reliance is placed on the RTC entries and the mutation record showing the name of Huchappa in cultivation columns for certain periods. The plaintiff also referred to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 the earlier proceedings initiated by Huchappa, including O.S.No.166/2013 and proceedings under Form No.7A. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.15 purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 11. Alleging interference by defendant No.15, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court, upon contest, dismissed the application holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima-facie possession over the suit schedule property. 5. Heard Sri. Shivaprasad Shantangoudar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Chandrakanth R Patel, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.15. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the trial Court failed to appreciate the long-standing and continuous possession of the plaintiff’s family, over the suit schedule property for more than seven decades. It is submitted that the RTC extracts and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 mutation entries clearly disclose possession and cultivation by Huchappa and the plaintiff’s family. It is further argued that the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.15 during the pendency of the suit does not confer any valid title, since defendant Nos.1 to 11 themselves had no subsisting right to convey. Learned counsel submits that the dispossession of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit would result in irreparable injury and therefore, the trial Court ought to have protected the possession till adjudication of the suit. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.15 - caveator supported the impugned order and contended that the plaintiff herself admits that the original possession was permissive in nature initially as a lessee, and subsequently, under alleged agreement of sale. Therefore, the claim of adverse possession is a disputed question requiring full-pledged trial and cannot be presumed at an interlocutory stage. It is further contended that the revenue records continued to stand in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 the name of Marulappa and his legal heirs, and respondent No.15 has purchased the property under a registered sale deed for a valuable consideration, pursuant to which, he has been put in possession. Learned counsel further contends that the plaintiff has failed to place any convincing material, establishing actual possession as on the date of the suit and therefore, the Trial Court rightly refused to grant injunction. 6. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from perversity or arbitrariness warranting any interference by this Court?" 7. The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, has held that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima-facie possession - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 over the suit schedule property. The trial Court further observed that, the plaintiff’s own pleadings disclosed the original possession of Karisiddappa, was under lease and thereafter, under an oral agreement of sale. The trial Court further observed, that Huchappa had also filed proceedings under Form No.7A claiming tenancy rights. Therefore, the exact nature of possession and the plea of adverse possession require adjudication only after trial. The trial Court found that though RTC disclosed the name of Huchappa for certain years, names of Marulappa and its legal heirs have continued in the revenue records and thus, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima-facie case and consequently, held that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury were not in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, dismissed I.A.No.2. 8. The plaintiff seeks for declaration of title by adverse possession. However, as observed by the trial Court, the pleadings themselves disclose that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 grandfather of the plaintiff initially entered the property as lessee and later continued under alleged oral agreement of sale. Therefore, the nature and character of possession asserted by the plaintiff are, themselves matter seriously, in dispute and necessarily require adjudication after trial. The trial Court has examined the pleadings and revenue records on rival claim and assigned reasons while arriving at conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima-facie case. The discretion exercised by the trial Court, while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, is neither arbitrary nor capricious. It is well settled that the Appellate Court would not ordinarily interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court unless such discretion is shown to have been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or contrary to the settled principles. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of WANDER LTD., VS. ANTOX INDIA PVT. LTD.1 (Wander Ltd.,), has held at paragraph No.14 as under : “14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court 1 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph: (SCR 721) “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.” 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the trial Court has exercised discretion reasonably and on judicial principles, the Appellate Court shall not substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. In the present case, the materials produced by the plaintiff cannot conclusively establish settled possession, warranting grant of temporary injunction, and the trial - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23342 MFA No. 7162 of 2025 Court has recorded findings based on the material and does not suffer from perversity or pertinent illegality. No grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii) The order dated 12.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.257/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Harihar sitting at Honnalli is hereby confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33