- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1354 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. SAROJA W/O. MUDDAPPA K., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.190, 3RD CROSS, MVJ SCHOOL ROAD, NEAR CAUVERY SCHOOL, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037. REPRESENTED BY PA HOLDER SRI SURESH M. S/O. SMT. SAROJA AND SRI. MUDDAPPA .K AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.631, MUDDAPPA BUILDING, 3RD CROSS, MV SCHOOL ROAD, NEAR CAUVERY SCHOOL, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037. …APPELLANT (BY SRI G.V. SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G. SRINIVAS S/O. M.R. GURUMURTHY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5, HP GAS GODOWN ROAD, RAMANJANRYA LAYOUT, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037. 2. Y. SUNDER RAM REDDY, S/O. LATE YALLAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.189/A, NEAR VISHVESHWARAIAH HIGH SCHOOL, AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 017. 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. A. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY’S HOUSE, MARAGONDANAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560 049. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.R. SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI J.M. RAJANNA SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; V/O. DATED 08.04.2026, NOTICE TO R-2 & R-3 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2026 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1600/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATION of JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by defendant No. 1 calling in question the order dated 24.01.2026 passed on I.A Nos. 1 and 2 in OS No. 1600/2024 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the applications filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property. BRIEF FACTS 2. The plaintiff instituted suit seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property bearing site No. 19 carved out of Sy. No. 91 of Munnekolalu Village. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 14.06.2004 executed by Sri Ravikumar. It is his case that said Ravikumar derived title - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 to the extent of land through a Will dated 11.08.1980 executed by Dodda Abbayya Reddy in favour of his successors including Ravikumar, who thereafter formed a layout and sold sites. The plaintiff contends that based on the said sale deed, katha has been transferred to his name and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. 3. The defendant No. 1 - appellant disputed the very identity and title of the plaintiff and claimed independent title over the property bearing katha No. 991/3 situated at Marathahalli village. The appellant traces title from Munireddy who was allotted property under a partition deed dated 20.03.1973 and who sold the same to Smt. Gowramma under a sale deed dated 18.03.1992. Thereafter, Gowramma executed a general power of attorney dated 21.04.1995 in favour of Sri Y Sundara Rama Reddy who in turn executed a registered sale deed dated 26.03.2012 in favour of the appellant. The defendant asserts possession and enjoyment of the property and contends that the plaintiff’s vendor Sri Ravikumar had already alienated the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 property in favour of Smt. Hemavathi in the year 2002 and therefore had no subsisting title to convey in the year 2004. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the impugned order suffers from non- application of mind and is based on misinterpretation of the pleadings. It is submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly proceeded as though the question before it was “whether the sale deed executed by Ravikumar in favour of plaintiff is valid” or “whether the sale deed executed by the same Ravikumar in favour of Smt. Hemavathi” and thereafter “the Power of Attorney executed by Smt. Hemavathi in favour of Sundara Rama Reddy is valid”. According to the appellant, this was not the case pleaded by either party and the Trial Court has misdirected itself while considering the application for temporary injunction. It is further contended that the Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the independent chain of title set up by defendant No. 1 tracing back to the year 1973, when the property fell to the share of Munireddy under partition. Thereafter, Munireddy sold the property in favour of Smt. Gowramma under a registered sale deed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 dated 18.03.1992, Smt. Gowramma, in turn, executed a Power of Attorney dated 21.04.1995 in favour of Sri Y Sundara Rama Reddy, and pursuant thereto the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant-defendant No.1. It is, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court, without properly appreciating the documents has erroneously granted an order of status quo. 5. Per contra, Sri Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 - plaintiff supports the impugned order and contends that the plaintiff has produced registered sale deed, katha and revenue records establishing a prima facie case. It is submitted that the defendant herself has raised a plea of title, which clearly demonstrates the existence of a serious dispute regarding title and such dispute can only be adjudicated in trial. It is further contended that, there is material to show interference and attempt to alter the nature of the property and therefore the Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in directing maintenance of status quo. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 6. Having heard the learned counsel, the point for consideration is, whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference? 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The Trial Court upon consideration of the material on record has held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case based on a registered sale deed and supporting revenue records. The balance of convenience lies in favour of protecting the property pending adjudication of rival claims. The Trial Court further held that there exists a reasonable apprehension of irreparable injury particularly in view of construction and possible alienation and, accordingly, allowed the application and directed the parties to maintain status quo. 8. At the outset, it is to be stated that it is well settled that an appeal against an order granting or refusing temporary injunction, is an appeal against the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court. The scope of interference by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 the Appellate Court is therefore limited. The Appellate Court would not substitute its own discretion merely because, another view is possible and interference is warranted only if it is shown that the Trial Court : (i) has acted arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, (ii) has ignored settled principles governing the grant of injunction, or (iii) has misread material evidence or relevant facts, or the order results in manifest injustice. 9. Bearing in mind the settled principles, the impugned order and the material on record are perused. The principal contention of the appellant is that, the Trial Court has misinterpreted the facts and proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the pleadings. However, a careful reading of the impugned order, does not support the said contention. The pleadings clearly disclose that the plaintiff claims title through Ravikumar under a sale deed dated 14.06.2004, whereas the defendant No.1 has specifically contended that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 said Ravikumar had already alienated the property in favour of Smt. Hemavathi in the year 2002 and subsequent transactions have taken place pursuant thereto. Thus the reference made by the Trial Court to this transaction, arises directly from the pleadings and forms part of the rival case put forth by the parties. The Trial Court has not undertaken any adjudication as to the validity of the competing sale deeds or transactions, the observations made are only in the context of appreciating the existence of rival claims and the consequent need to preserve the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has misdirected or misunderstood the facts. 10. Insofar as the contention relating to independent chain of title of defendant No. 1 is concerned, the same also gives rise to a serious dispute regarding title and identity of the property, which can only be adjudicated upon a full- fledged trial. At the interlocutory stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a detailed examination or record findings which may prejudice the rights of the party. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 11. When both parties assert possession and rely on documents in support of their respective claim, the proper course for the Court is to preserve the subject matter in its existing condition. The material on record indicates that there is construction activity and any further alteration would result in complication and multiplicity of proceedings. The Trial Court, having considered this aspect, has exercised its discretion directing maintenance of status quo, which is a balanced order, safeguarding the interest of both parties, without conferring exclusive advantage on either side. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are prima facie based on the material available and do not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting any interference. Accordingly the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following : ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23016 MFA No. 1354 of 2026 (ii) The order passed on I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 dated 24.01.2026 in OS No. 1600/2024 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property is hereby confirmed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35