- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19395 MFA No. 6847 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6847 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI L. MAHADEVA S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.244, REVENUE LAYOUT, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560068. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANJUNATHA A., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SURESHA S/O GURUVABOVI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT THIRUMALAPURA VILLAGE, KALINGANAHALLI POST, NAGAMANGALA SUB DISTRICT, MANDYA DISTRICT-571418. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI S. GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1961/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-15, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19395 MFA No. 6847 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff calling in question the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short) in O.S.No.1961/2025, whereby I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be rejected. Brief facts: 2. The appellant-plaintiff claims that the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.25/1, measuring 11 ½ guntas situated at Singasandra Village, originally belonged to his father late Lakshmaiah and thereafter, under a registered partition deed dated 26.11.2007, the said property fell to his share. It is his case that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and, has constructed residential houses therein and is residing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19395 MFA No. 6847 of 2025 in a portion of the same. It is further contended that the respondent-defendant, who is a stranger to the property interfered with the peaceful possession of the appellant during March-2025 and attempted to dispossess him. Hence, the suit for injunction came to be filed along with I.A.No.1 seeking interim protection. 3. The respondent resisted the application contending that the entire Sy.No.25/1 measuring 3 acres 17 guntas was acquired by the Government for the benefit of Aircraft Employees Housing Co-operative Society, possession was taken and handed over to the society, lay out was formed and sites were allotted. The respondent claims title over Site No.1339/D through a registered sale deed and asserts lawful possession. 4. The Trial Court, upon considering of the pleadings and material on record, rejected the application holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19395 MFA No. 6847 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of the registered partition deed and subsequent revenue entries. It is contended that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled possession. Possession is sufficient to grant injunction even in the absence of clear title. It is contended that the acquisition proceedings relied upon by the respondents are not binding on the appellant, neither the appellant nor his father were effectively made parties or served with a notice. It is contended that the documents produced by the respondent are disputed and cannot be relied upon at the interlocutory stage. It is submitted that the Trial Court has failed to properly apply the settled principles governing temporary injunction and has erroneously rejected the application and that the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N. Phanindra, appearing for the respondent submits that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19395 MFA No. 6847 of 2025 entire extent Sy.No.25/1, measuring 3 acres 17 guntas had been validly acquired by the Government for the benefit of Aircraft Employees Housing Co-operative Society under the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition proceedings have attained finality, the father of the appellant has challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.1203/1990 and connected matters which came to be dismissed, the writ appeals preferred thereof were also dismissed, the special leave petition and the review petition filed thereafter have also been dismissed. It is contended that pursuant to the acquisition, possession of the land was taken by Government on 07.08.2003 and handed over to the society and thereafter a residential layout was formed and approved by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA). 7. It is contended that the sites formed in the layout were allotted to the members and conveyed through registered sale deeds. The respondent has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19395 MFA No. 6847 of 2025 purchased Site No.1339/D through a registered sale deed dated 15.01.2025 and is in lawful possession. It is submitted that the appellant has suppressed the material facts relating to acquisition and the earlier litigations and has approached the Court with unclean hands. Once the land is acquired and possession is taken, the appellant cannot claim any right, title or lawful possession and neither the suit before the Trial Court was maintainable and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of injunction. The balance of convenience stands in favour of respondent, who is a lawful purchaser and no irreparable injury would be caused to the appellant. The Trial Court having considered all these aspects has rightly rejected the application and the same does not warrant any interference. 8. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the material on record, the point that arises for consideration is: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19395 MFA No. 6847 of 2025 “Whether the appellant has made out a case to interfere with the order of the Trial Court in rejecting I.A.No.1? 9. The answer to the above point is emphatic no for the following reasons: i. The material placed on record clearly indicates that the entire extent of Sy.No.25/1, measuring 3 acres 17 guntas has been subjected to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government for the benefit of Aircraft Employees Housing Co-operative Society. ii. It is not in dispute that the said acquisition was challenged by the father of the appellant before this Court in W.P.No.1203/1990 and connected matters and the same came to be dismissed. The writ appeals preferred therefrom were also dismissed. Further, the special leave petition filed before the Apex Court came to be dismissed and even the review petition filed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19395 MFA No. 6847 of 2025 thereafter was also dismissed. Thus, the acquisition proceedings have attained finality. iii. It is also evident from the records that the possession of the acquired land was taken by the Government on 07.08.2003 and the same was handed over to the society. Thereafter, the society has formed a residential layout and the sites have been allotted to its members and conveyed under the registered sale deeds. Once the land stands acquired, possession has been taken over and handed over to the beneficiary of the society, the question of the appellant asserting any independent right or seeking protection of such alleged possession does not arise. iv. In that view of the matter, even assuming that the appellant claims to be in possession, such possession cannot be recognized as a lawful possession in the eye of law so as to grant an - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19395 MFA No. 6847 of 2025 order of injunction. The relief of temporary injunction being an equitable and discretionary relief, a party approaching, the Court must come with clean hands. v. In the present case, the appellant has not disclosed the material facts relating to acquisition proceedings and earlier rounds of litigation, which disentitles him from seeking such equitable relief. Further, when the very subject matter of the suit is an acquired land, the entitlement of the plaintiff to maintain a suit itself becomes a serious doubt. vi. Though this Court at the interlocutor stage is not required to conclusively decide the issue of maintainability. However, the same is a relevant factor to hold that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case. vii. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the material on record and has recorded a finding - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19395 MFA No. 6847 of 2025 that the appellant has failed to establish a prima facie case and consequently the balance of convenience and irreparable injury do not arise. 10. For the foregoing reason, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The order dated 07.04.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.1961/2025 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71