- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29988 WP No. 14301 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 14301 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI CHANNABASAPPA S SURPUR S/O LATE SHIVASANGAPPA SURPUR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, AGS COLONY ANANDA NAGARA, HEBBALA VILLAGE, BENGALURU - 560 024 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BABU RAO M., ADVOCATE, SRI. ABHAY CHOUDHARY M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HONNA RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SWAMY M R S/O REVANNASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEAS, R/O NO. 1040, 2ND FLOOR, OPP. WATER TANK BUS STOP KUAMRASWAMY EXTENSION, 1ST FLOOR, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU - 560 078 …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 09.03.2026 IN MA NO.13/2025 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JUDGE AT BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT AS PER ANNX-H IN SO FAR AS I.A. NO.3 ORDER, SETTING ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT TI DTD. 07.08.2025 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29988 WP No. 14301 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2026 passed in M.A. No.13/2025 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, insofar as the Appellate Court has set aside the order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner herein has filed a suit for injunction and has also filed two interlocutory applications. I.A. No. II was filed seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the petitioner’s use of the passage in respect of Item No. 2 of the suit schedule property. I.A. No. III was also filed seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating Item No. 2 of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court allowed both the applications. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29988 WP No. 14301 of 2026 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has filed M.A.No.13/2025. The Appellate Court, upon consideration of the matter, confirmed the order of the Trial Court insofar as the petitioner’s right to use the passage is concerned. However, the Appellate Court reversed the order of injunction in respect of alienation. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the property is alienated and the purchaser does not honour the condition to use the passage, it would cause a lot of hardship to the plaintiff, and this aspect was not considered by the Appellate Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order passed in MA No.13/2025. The Appellate Court has observed that there is a road in Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. However, the defendant is the owner of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, the defendant may be directed not to obstruct the plaintiff's use of the road. However, the defendant cannot be restrained from alienating the suit property because he is the absolute owner of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29988 WP No. 14301 of 2026 Even if the defendant sells the suit property consisting of the road, the purchaser would step into the shoes of the defendant. Under such circumstances, the Appellate Court allowed IA No. III because the plaintiff can seek relief only to prevent disturbance of his right to use the road. However, the plaintiff has no right over Item No. II of the suit schedule property to restrain the defendant from selling the property, and accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's finding as far as IA No. III is concerned. 6. This Court do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Court. The petitioner sought injunction in respect of passage and also sought injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property. The Court has already passed an order in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from interfering with the use of the passage. As rightly observed by the Appellate Court, even if the property is sold, the purchaser will step into the shoes of the defendant, and the same applies to him. When the defendant is the owner of the property, there cannot be an injunction against the true owner, he cannot be restrained from selling - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29988 WP No. 14301 of 2026 the property. In the considered opinion of the Court, the Appellate Court had rightly passed the order, and there is no reason to interfere. 7. In view of the above discussions, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9