- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20176 MFA No. 2174 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2174 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI G. KUMAR S/O LATE M. GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT #1, THIMMARAYAPPA GARDEN, 9TH CROSS, DODDIGUNTE, COX TOWN, BENGALOORU-560 005. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VEERABHADRAIAH M.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI A. GREGORY ASHOK S/O LATE AROKIASWAMY PILLAI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.15/B, THAMBICHETTIAR ROAD, COX TOWN, BENGALOORU-560 005 DIRECTOR OF FAR EAST BROADCASTING ASSOCIATES OF INDIA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALOORU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALOORU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI S.D.N. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2025 Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20176 MFA No. 2174 of 2026 IN O.S.NO.5492/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-42, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1/2025 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: 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 13.03.2026 passed on I.A. No.1/2025 in O.S. No.5492/2025 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-42) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff has instituted suit for relief of permanent injunction contending that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property bearing Site No.1242, situated at HBR layout, Bengaluru, having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20176 MFA No. 2174 of 2026 23.01.2004 executed by his vendor, who in turn derived title pursuant to allotment made by the BDA. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff, that after purchase, he obtained katha in his name and has been regularly paying taxes in respect of the suit property. It is further contended that defendant No.1, without any manner of right, has undertaken construction activities in the neighboring site bearing Nos.1241, 1243, 1244 and 1245 and in the course of such activity, has interfered with the plaintiff's property by digging on the northern and southern sides and allegedly demolishing the compound wall and a shed said to be existing on the suit property. 4. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has denied the claim of the plaintiff and contended that the suit property forms part of a larger extent, which has been transferred in favour of a third party, namely M/s. Gudwil Housing Company under a gift deed dated 14.09.2017 and that the said company is in possession of the property. It - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20176 MFA No. 2174 of 2026 is also contended that the plaintiff's title is based on a disputed and allegedly fraudulent GPA transaction, the proposed defendant have also asserted independent rights over the property, alleging irregularities in the allotment and the subsequent transactions. 5. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, held: i. That the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case. ii. There exists a serious cloud over the title, requiring adjudication in a declarative suit. iii. The plaintiff has not produced any sufficient material to prove actual possession. In view of the disputed and alleged construction, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. Consequently, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are not in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the application for temporary injunction came to be rejected. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20176 MFA No. 2174 of 2026 6. Sri Veerabhadraiaha M.C., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in rejecting the application for temporary injunction. It is contended that the appellant has produced cogent evidence, such as registered sale deed, possession certificate, katha and tax paid receipts, which clearly establish his title and possession. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 has illegally commenced construction over the suit property and such acts would cause irreparable injury. The balance of convenience is in favour of protecting the property from unlawful interference. It is contended that the findings of the trial Court are contrary to the material on record and the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, Sri S. Sreevatsa, learned senior counsel on behalf of Sri S.D.N. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and contends that the appellant has not established either title - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20176 MFA No. 2174 of 2026 or possession. It is submitted that the suit property forms part of a larger extent, which has been transferred in favour of the third party and the appellant has not sought declaration of title. It is further contended that serious dispute exists with regard to identity and title of the property and therefore, a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. It is submitted that the appellant has failed to produce any credible material to show actual possession as on the date of suit and therefore, no injunction can be granted. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the respondents. The point that arises for consideration in the appeal is: “Whether the appellant has made out any ground to interfere with the discretionary order of the Trial Court refusing to grant of temporary injunction?” 9. At the outset, it is to be noted that the grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary relief and the Appellate Court would be slow in interfering with such - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20176 MFA No. 2174 of 2026 discretion unless it is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or contrary to the settled propositions of law. 10. The very foundation of the plaintiff's claim is seriously disputed. The defendant has specifically contended that the suit property forms part of a larger extent. Further allegations have been made by the plaintiff with regard to the validity of the GPA under which the plaintiff's vendor is stated to have derived title. These competing claims clearly give rise to a cloud over the title of the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have sought the relief of declaration and the trial Court has rightly invoked the principle that a suit for bare injunction, in the face of serious title dispute, is not maintainable. 11. The plaintiff has placed reliance upon the title documents. However, the mere production of the documents does not establish actual possession, particularly when the same is specifically disputed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20176 MFA No. 2174 of 2026 Significantly, it is to be noticed that no convincing material has been produced to evidence possession. The alleged demolition of the shed is also not substantiated by any material. From the plaintiff’s own pleadings, it is evident that the construction activity is going on in the neighboring sites. 12. The plaintiff has not demonstrated that the findings recorded by the trial Court suffers from any perversity warranting interference by this Court. The trial Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The rejection of the temporary injunction is justified and the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The miscellaneous first appeal is hereby dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20176 MFA No. 2174 of 2026 ii. The order dated 13.03.2026 passed on I.A. No.1/2025 in O.S. No.5492/2025 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-42) stands confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54