- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7613 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. V. MAHANANDA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, S/O. LATE ANGADI VEERANNA, #51, 13TH CROSS, 11TH A MAIN, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041. 2. KALAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O. MUNINANJAPPA, #1/2, SHWETHA NILAYA, MOUNTAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. 3. TILAKAVATHI KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, W/O. B.S. KRISHNA MURTHY, SF-202, SUMUKHA RESIDENCY, AREHALLI MAIN ROAD, AGS LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 061. 4. V. SAILAJA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O. V. SAMBA MURTHY, #161, 29TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070. 5. G. MADHURI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O. G. KRISHNA KISHORE, #17/13-83/D/13, 6TH CROSS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 2ND MAIN, KATHRIGUPPE, HOYSALANAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. 6. PADMASHREE AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O. C.K. CHANDRASHEKAR, #40/4, 8TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003. 7. SHANTHA NAIDU @ S. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O. C. SUBRAMANYA NAIDU @ SUBAMANIAN, SY.NO.34/3, NEAR PRAKRUTHI VILAS CONVENTION HALL, SINGENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, MUTTHANALLUR POST, BENGALURU-560099. 8. KESHAV V. PRABHU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O. VENKATESH, #166-5, 7TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018. 9. VENKATESH N. NAIK AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. NAGAPPA D. NAIK, #331-5/A, SINDHUNADI ROAD, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560019. 10. E. K. SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. E. KONDAIAH, #1300, 9TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN, 2ND PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 11. M. DAMODAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. M. POTTIMI NAIDU, #210/4, SUBRAMANYAPURA, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 061. 12. SHRIKANTH V. SHET AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. VINAYAK V. SHET, #3, 80 FEET ROAD, SRINIVASA NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 050. 13. SAVITHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O. S. SHANKARAPPA, #971, 8TH CROSS, 13TH MAIN, SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560 050. 14. T.S. RATHNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O. T.S. SUDHAKAR, #54, NEAR ABBAIAH NAIDU STUDIO, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN, NAIDU LAYOUT, AREHALLI, BENGALURU-560 061. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.R. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI THILAKRAJ S.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. C. SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKA ANTHONAPPA, #80, KALENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 076. 2. AYUB KHAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE SATTAR KHAN, #8/2, M. M. GARDEN, 3RD CROSS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 NEAR SAMSUNG SERVICE CENTRE, 6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560076. 3. MOHAMMED NASER KHAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN KHAN, #12-2-20, MURAD NAGAR, ASIF NAGAR, HUMAYUN NAGAR, HYDERABAD-500 028. 4. C. ANTHONAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKA ANTHONAPPA, 5. C. RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKA ANTHONAPPA, 6. C. ANTHONY MARY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKA ANTHONAPPA, SL. NOS.4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.80, KALENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANOJ K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHABALESHWAR CHITRIGEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2 & R-3; NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-6 ARE D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO.1355/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-40, 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 PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs calling in question the order dated 04.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.1355/2024 on the file of the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-40) Bengaluru City (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be rejected and the earlier order of status quo was vacated. Brief facts: 2. The plaintiffs instituted suit O.S.No.1355/2024 seeking declaration and consequential relief of injunction in respect of the residential sites formed in Sy.No.80/2A of Kothunur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the land originally belonged to one Puttappa, who had executed a registered power of attorney dated 20.01.1993 in favour - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 of one T. Devarajulu Naidu (developer). Pursuant thereto, a layout was formed and individual sites were carved out and conveyed to various purchasers. The plaintiffs are purchasers, under the registered sale deeds executed with specified site numbers, measurements and boundaries. The sale deeds are followed by mutation in the revenue records, assessment of property tax, continuous possession, and enjoyment. It is further pleaded that though the land was earlier subjected to acquisition proceedings for formation of layout by the BDA, the said acquisition did not culminate in effective vesting, in as much as: i. The possession of the land was not taken and ii. The acquisition proceedings, in respect of the lands including the subject lands had been treated as lapsed and rendered ineffective, and in several cases, similarly situated lands were reverted to the landowners. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 3. On such reversion/de-notification/lapse of acquisition, the vendors had subsisting rights and consequently valid title was conveyed to the plaintiffs. Alleging interference and threat of dispossession by the defendants, the plaintiffs sought temporary injunction. Though an order of status quo was initially granted, the same was vacated by the Trial Court, leading to the present appeal. 4. Sri M.R. Rajgopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the title of the plaintiffs is traceable through registered conveyances, executed pursuant to a registered GPA executed by the original owner in favour of one T. Devarajulu Naidu, who was a developer. The acquisition proceedings, though initiated, have not resulted in vesting and the acquisition has lapsed and stood abandoned. The lands have been treated as de-notified and reverted to the original owners. Once the acquisition is rendered ineffective, the original owners gain title and the ‘subsequent purchasers’ derived - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 valid title. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the Trial Court has erroneously presumed invalidity of the title at the interlocutory stage, without adjudication. It is submitted that the appellants are in settled possession for decades, which by itself entitles them for protection. The rejection of injunction results in serious prejudice and irreparable injury. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the entire land in Sy.No.80/2A was subject to acquisition and, upon issuance of notification, the land stood vested with the State. It is submitted that any transaction entered into thereafter, is void and does not confer title. It is submitted that the layout relied upon by the appellants is unauthorized and unapproved and not recognized by the planning authorities. It is submitted that the appellants are not in lawful possession. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 Others1 (Shiv Kumar) and Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Jain and Others2 (Ravinder Kumar Jain) to contend that the subsequent purchaser cannot claim any right. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and material on record, the point that arises for consideration is, “whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court? 7. The material on record, prima facie indicates that the appellants have purchased identified sites under the registered sale deeds. The conveyance traces back to the power of attorney holder authorized by the original landowners (to develop the lands). The sites are described with specific boundaries, measurements, revenue entries and the tax records stand in the name of the appellants. 1 (2019) 10 SCC 229 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 654 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 At this stage, the said documents cannot be brushed aside as non-existent or void without full-fledged trial. A crucial aspect in the present case is that, though acquisition notices were issued, it is the consistent stand of the appellants that the physical possession was never taken, the lands were not developed within the statutory period and in respect of the similarly placed lands, acquisition has been held to be lapsed/abandoned. The suit does not involve a challenge to acquisition. The question involved in the present suit raises a triable issue, which cannot be decided conclusively at the interlocutory stage. In these circumstances, from the material on record, the plaintiffs have established possession under registered conveyances, and are entitled to protection of their possession pending adjudication. 8. The decisions relied by the respondents in Shiv Kumar and Ravinder Kumar Jain (supra) laid down that the purchases, after subsisting acquisition notification are void. However, these principles only arise when - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 acquisitions are valid and subsisting and have culminated in vesting. The said decisions cannot be applied at the threshold to deny interim protection, as they amount to prejudging the core issue. The appellants/plaintiffs have produced registered sale deeds, revenue records, and material indicating long-standing possession. This is sufficient to establish a prima facie case without expressing any opinion on the title. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the possession needs to be protected and hence the parties are directed to maintain status quo. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby allowed in part. ii. The impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.1355/2024 on the file of the XXXIX Additional City - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22731 MFA No. 7613 of 2025 Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-40), Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside. iii. The parties are directed to maintain status quo as to possession, alienation and encumbrance till the disposal of the suit. iv. It is clarified that any observation made by this Court is to the limited extent of considering the application and would not affect the merits of the suit, which shall be considered independently by the Trial Court. v. The Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86