- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010175502026 NC: 2026:KHC:45188 MFA No. 1841 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1841 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRIMAN MADHVACHARYA MOOLA MAHASAMSTHANA, SRIMAN MADHAVA THEERTHA SRI MATHA REP.BY ITS JOINT-SECRETARY SRI B.S KRISHNA MURTHY TAMBIHALLI KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563 163 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A M VIJAY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI C RAGHUPATHI S/O LATE CHIKKABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT VIBHUTHIPURA VILLAGE K.R PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK -560 037 2. 3. SHRI C NARAYANA, S/O LATE CHIKKABBAIAH (SINCE DEAD BY LR'S) SMT.PAVITHRA W/O LATE C. NARAYANA REDDY @NARAYANASWAMY, Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010175502026 NC: 2026:KHC:45188 MFA No. 1841 of 2026 4. SRI SUMAN @ SUMAN BABU, S/O LATE C. NARAYANA REDDY ALIAS NARAYANASWAMY MAJOR 5. SMT.DIVYA N D/O LATE C NARAYANA REDDY @ NARAYANASWAMY, MAJOR RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO. 141, SRI RENUKA DEVI NILAYA CYBLE GREENS LAYOUT KITHIGANUR K.R.PURAM BENGALURU-560 036. 6. THE TALACAUVERY HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (REGD) 4TH FLOOR, 3RD CROSS NEHRU NAGAR, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU 560 020 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY RAVISHANKAR 7. TALACAUVERY NAGARA NIVASIGALA KSHEMABHIVRIDDI SANGHA (R), VIBHUTHIPURA, NEW WARD NO 81 TALACAUVERY LAYOUT 1ST MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS BENGALURU 560 037 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT A SEETHARAMAIAH 8. PARAMAPOOJYA SHOORA MADHVA THEERTHA, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 163 REP. BY HIS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SRI KAKOLU RAGHAVENDRA (ORDERED TO BE DELETED VIDE TRIAL COURT ORDER DATED 5.6.2023 9 SHRI PADIYATH ALI SALAM S/O LATE DR. P. MOHAMMED ALI - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010175502026 NC: 2026:KHC:45188 MFA No. 1841 of 2026 MAJOR, NO.324, 8TH MAIN ROAD HAL III STAGE, BENGALURU 560 075 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SREEVATSA., SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. YASHAS K.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 TO R-4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 13.02.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.II IN O.S.NO. 26754/2022 BY THE C/C IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-21), ALLOWING THE IA.NO. II FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISISION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant No.5 challenging the order dated 13.2.2026 passed on IA No. II in O.S. No.26754/2022, whereby the trial Court allowed the application restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the application schedule property. 2. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.5 that the impugned order passed by the learned trial judge is illegal, perverse and - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010175502026 NC: 2026:KHC:45188 MFA No. 1841 of 2026 arbitrary and the same is not sustainable in law. It is further contended by the counsel that the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the admitted fact that the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit 'B' schedule property and that they are seeking possession of the 'B' schedule property from the defendants. Therefore, the trial Court has lost sight of the relief sought by the plaintiffs and has passed the impugned order restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the property when the plaintiffs themselves sought possession of the 'B' schedule property from the defendants. Infact, admittedly, 'B' schedule property is in possession of the defendants. 2.1 Learned counsel also contends that in the suit, the plaintiffs sought re-delivery of possession of 'B' schedule property measuring 2 guntas in Sy. No.189/1 of Vibhuthipura village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru, whereas the schedule to I.A. No.2 mentions about land - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010175502026 NC: 2026:KHC:45188 MFA No. 1841 of 2026 measuring to an extent of 9 guntas in Sy. No.189/1 of Vibhuthipura village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. There is discrepancy in the schedule 'B' to the plaint and the schedule to the application filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel further contends that the trial Court has not taken into consideration these crucial aspects while considering the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and also the fundamentals of granting Temporary injunction by conveniently ignoring the three essential requirements. Therefore, he contends that on all counts, the impugned order deserves to be set aside 3. Per contra, learned senior counsel - Sri Sreevatsa fairly submits that the plaintiffs have sought re-delivery of possession of 'B' schedule property from the defendants, which admittedly is a proof of the fact that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property and that defendants are in possession of 'B' schedule property. Therefore, on this short point, the present appeal could be disposed of. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010175502026 NC: 2026:KHC:45188 MFA No. 1841 of 2026 4. While considering an application under Order - XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, three essential requirements are to be looked into by the trial Court. They are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable hardship that would be caused to the aggrieved party. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are seeking re-delivery of possession of the 'B' schedule property. The defendants are in possession of 'B' schedule property. Therefore, the trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case. Once a prima facie case is not made out, question of going further to consider two other essential requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable hardship would not arise. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has committed perversity and illegality in proceeding further and granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs by way of the impugned order. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010175502026 NC: 2026:KHC:45188 MFA No. 1841 of 2026 5. I am in agreement with learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the prayer made and the discrepancy in the application schedule and the suit schedule properties, which is also fairly admitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondents. Under the circumstances the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R 1. Appeal stands allowed. 2. The impugned order dated 13.02.2026 on I.A. No.II in O.S No. 26754/2022 passed by the C/C IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-21) is hereby set aside. 1 Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0