- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28194 WP No. 7738 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 7738 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJASHEKHARA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA GOWDA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT M.GUDDEKOPPA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 418 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATHI C.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PARWATHAMMA W/O LATE M.VEERABHADRAPPA GOWDA, AGE : 72 YEARS 2. A.V. MALLIKARJUNA, S/ O LATE M.VEERABHADRAPPA GOWDA, AGE: 52 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT RAMAKSHETRIYA STREET, HOSANAGARA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. -577 418 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BIMBADHAR M. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28194 WP No. 7738 of 2026 ORDER DATED 25.04.2024 PASSED ON IA NO. 1 PASSED IN OS NO. 15/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSANAGARA AT ANNEXURE-F AND THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 PASSED IN MA NO. 10004/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HONBLE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA (SITTING AT SAGAR) AT ANNEXURE-G BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.15/2023 dated 25.04.2024 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara and the order passed in M.A.No.10004/2024 dated 19.12.2025 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga (Sitting at Sagar), the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.15/2023 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara, seeking declaration that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. Along with the suit, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28194 WP No. 7738 of 2026 obstructing the use of the road located in the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. 3. The trial court by order dated 25.04.2024 had rejected the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed M.A.No.10004/2024 before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga and the appeal also came to be dismissed by order dated 19.12.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that both the Courts have wrongly come to the conclusion that the unregistered Sale Deed dated 06.06.1988 executed by the father of 2nd respondent and husband of 1st respondent is an unregistered agreement of sale, but while reading the contents of the unregistered Sale Deed dated 06.06.1988, it can be presumed that the said document is not an unregistered sale agreement but it is an unregistered Sale Deed. It is submitted that the unregistered Sale Deed dated 06.06.1988 executed by the father of the 2nd respondent and husband of the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner herein, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is in possession of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28194 WP No. 7738 of 2026 suit schedule property and at the time of executing the said document, the executant has received an amount of Rs.1375/- from the petitioner as a total sale consideration and given all the rights and interest to the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property and this aspect was not considered by the Courts. It is submitted that the Courts have failed to consider that to reach his land, the petitioner has to pass through the suit schedule property. The Courts have failed to consider the prima facie case made out by the petitioner, ignoring the undisputed fact that the petitioner is in enjoyment and possession of the property. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for injunction as sought for and the writ petition may be allowed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the caveator/ respondents submits that both the Courts by way of an elaborate order, considering all the aspects had dismissed the I.A. and this Court while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the order impugned which is a well considered order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28194 WP No. 7738 of 2026 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. While rejecting the application, the trial Court had observed that the plaintiff has placed reliance on the unregistered agreement dated 06.06.1988. The plaintiff has not furnished original agreements relied upon him. Only the photocopy of the agreement dated 06.06.1988 are furnished. There is no mention of any road existing on the suit property specified in that agreement. The plaintiff has not furnished any document to indicate existence of any road on the suit property. Even in the prayer of the plaint, the plaintiff has not sought to declare about the existence of a road on the suit property. The relief sought in the I.A. is to restrain the defendant from causing obstruction in the plaintiff’s use of suit property as approach road to reach his lands in Sl.No.43, 47 and 48. The trial Court had observed that the relief sought in the I.A. is entirely different from the relief sought in the suit. It is further observed that the interim order must be in aid of final relief and cannot be entirely different from the relief sought in the main suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28194 WP No. 7738 of 2026 7. It is also observed that there is discrepancy in the sketch furnished by the plaintiff and defendants. The actual extent of property in possession of the plaintiff is to be ascertained only after conclusion of trial. It is only after trial that the trial Court can come to the concrete conclusion about the actual extent of property in possession of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff is required to prima facie establish his continued possession over the suit property ever since 30.05.1988 till the date of suit. Considering the survey sketch furnished by both parties, even the area mentioned in the copies of sketch furnished by both parties differ from each other. The trial Court had observed that considering the difference in the description of suit property and the absence of legal compliance of the documents furnished by the plaintiff, the Court do not find any merits in the case. It is observed that the Court cannot conduct a mini trial at this point of time and cannot render any concrete finding on the said agreements at this stage, it needs to be mentioned that the burden of proving such agreements in accordance with law lies on the plaintiff and at this stage, the Court cannot grant any injunction. It is observed that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28194 WP No. 7738 of 2026 case based on unregistered agreements dated 06.06.1988, if an order of injunction is granted as prayed for, it would cause prejudice to defendant No.1 with respect to the lands presently standing in her name. When the title of defendant No.1 over the suit property is admitted, grant of injunction restraining the true owner with respect to suit property would be a harsh remedy and accordingly, rejected the application. 8. When it comes to the order passed by the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court had considered the order passed by the trial Court and also considered the judgments of the Apex Court in several cases. The Appellate Court had held that the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff has been seriously disputed by the defendants. The plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case to grant equitable order of temporary injunction which is harbinger to consider other aspects such as balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury to grant an order of temporary injunction. The Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is observed that the Appellate Court is empowered to interfere with the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28194 WP No. 7738 of 2026 order of the trial Court only if it is shown that the same is arbitrary, perverse, illegal and against the settled principles of law. The Appellate Court has taken the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 9. This Court has perused the order of both the Courts. According to the plaintiff, based on an unregistered Sale Deed, the plaintiff became the owner of the property by way of adverse possession. The defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, he has come to the Court seeking a decree of declaration by way of adverse possession with regard to the suit property and a consequential relief for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference to his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. But the interim injunction that is sought is restraining the defendants from obstructing the use of road located within the property till disposal of the suit. The trial Court had rightly observed that the petitioner is relying on the photocopy of the agreement dated 06.06.1988, where there is no mention of any road existing on the suit property and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28194 WP No. 7738 of 2026 plaintiff has not furnished any document to indicate existence of any road. Even in the prayer also, the plaintiff has not made any mention with regard to the road on the suit property. For the first time, he sought for temporary injunction in the I.A. So the relief that is sought in the I.A. is entirely different from the relief sought in the suit. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the interim order must be in aid of final relief and the relief that is sought in I.A. is entirely different nature than the relief sought in the suit. The trial Court had rightly considered this aspect and rightly dismissed the application. 10. The trial Court was also right in considering the fact that in view of the different sketches that are furnished by the parties with regard to the different stands taken by the respective parties, there cannot be an injunction at the threshold. When the defendants’ title to the property has been accepted by the plaintiff, there cannot be any injunction against the true owner. Both the Courts have concurrently held against the plaintiff and this Court do not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the order passed by both the Courts. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28194 WP No. 7738 of 2026 ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33