- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35182 WP No. 5506 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5506 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.GANESH K S/O LATE SRI. K.S. MAYYA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.964, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE, HEBBAL, MYSURU-570 016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE SRI THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SMT SIDDAMMA, W/O LATE GAVI SIDDEGOWDA @ MADHU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SRI M T ARUN KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI M V THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 R/AT NO.21, PATEL NIVAS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35182 WP No. 5506 of 2022 METAGALLI, MYSURU - 570 016. …RESPONDENTS R1 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.07.2026, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU IN M.A.NO.9/2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.01.2022 passed in M.A.No.9/2020 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’ for short). 2. Sri S. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.871/2017 before the VIII Additional Civil Judge - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35182 WP No. 5506 of 2022 and JMFC, Mysuru (for short, the ‘Trial Court’) seeking the relief of permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs against the respondents herein. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking temporary injunction, and the same was allowed by the Trial Court on 29.11.2019. However, the said order was reversed by the Appellate Court solely on the ground that there is a discrepancy in the schedule to the sale deed and the checkbandi. 3. It is further submitted that the vendor of the petitioner had purchased the site in auction conducted by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short ‘MUDA’) in the year 2008, and thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff purchased the same in the year 2011. It is contended that the records indicate that even chekbandi was corrected by MUDA vide Rectification Deed dated 08.11.2010, produced at Annexure K. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35182 WP No. 5506 of 2022 4. It is also submitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have instituted a suit in O.S.No.587/2018 against the Commissioner, MUDA and the petitioner herein, seeking direction against the Commissioner, MUDA, to execute a Registered Title Deed in respect of Site No.378. The averments made in the plaint in the said suit indicate that no sale deed has been executed in favour of the defendants. It is contended that the petitioner, being the title holder of the property and having all relevant records in his name, has obtained plan approval and commenced construction on the suit schedule property. It is submitted that these aspects were not considered by the Appellate Court in its proper perspective. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. Though notice is served on the respondents, there is no representation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35182 WP No. 5506 of 2022 6. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.871/2017 seeking a judgment and decree against the defendants, restraining the defendants or persons claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, an application I.A.No.1 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court, after hearing both sides, vide order dated 29.11.2019. The defendants assailed the said order before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.9/2020. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal partly vide order dated 17.01.2022 solely on the ground that there are discrepancies in the sale deed of the plaintiff and the checkbandi. 7. It is required to be noticed that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 21.01.2011 executed by his vendor Sri K. Srinivasa Naidu, who had purchased the said property in a public auction conducted by MUDA. It is further to be noticed that, after the purchase of the suit schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35182 WP No. 5506 of 2022 property, the plaintiff got the khata transferred to his name, paid the taxes and also obtained approved plan for construction of the residential building on the suit schedule property. 8. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendants are making an assertion that Site No.378 is allotted to them and that the said site lies in between Site No.358 belonging to the petitioner/plaintiff. It is also required to be noticed that the vendor of the petitioner had got the checkbandi corrected from MUDA under a Rectification Deed dated 08.11.2010. 9. It is further required to be noticed that respondent/defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed OS.No.587/2018 seeking direction against the Commissioner, MUDA, to execute a Registered Title Deed in favour of the plaintiffs therein, who are the legal representatives of the original allottee deceased Smt Ningamma. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35182 WP No. 5506 of 2022 10. A perusal of the averments made in the plaint in the aforesaid suit indicates that it is the assertion of the defendants that MUDA has allotted site in favour of Smt. Ningamma and has sought a direction to execute the sale deed. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the defendants have not yet become the absolute owners of Site No.378, and their prayer for execution of the deed is pending consideration before the Trial Court. 11. Considering the material placed, the Trial Court clearly held that the plaintiff is the owner and is in physical possession of the suit schedule property, and by way of pleadings and material placed on record, he is able to establish a prima facie case in his favour to protect his possession over the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. It is also required to be noticed that the rights of the defendants with regard to the alleged allotment is yet to be decided by the authorities. 12. Hence, it would be appropriate to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35182 WP No. 5506 of 2022 and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. If the defendants are not restrained and the plaintiff is not allowed to interfere the suit schedule property, it would amount to denying the legitimate rights of the plaintiff, as he is the title holder of the suit schedule property and in possession thereof. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER. i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 17.01.2022 passed in M.A.No.9/2020 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru is hereby set aside. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4