- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8849 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJULA T.S. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O LATE N. NAGARAJU R/AT NO.220, NARAYANAPPA THOTHA, 80 FT ROAD, NEAR RAAGA APARTMENT, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 098. 2. SRI NITHIN NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O LATE N. NAGARAJU R/AT NO.220, NARAYANAPPA THOTHA, 80 FT ROAD, NEAR RAAGA APARTMENT, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 098. &APPELLANTS (BY SMT. PUSHPAVATHI B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MANJULA .N AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O RAMU .G R/AT NO.71, 3RD CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR GANESH MEDICAL, PADARAYANA PURA, BENGALURU 3 560 026. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4379/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 24TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH NO.6, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by defendants challenging the order dated 12.08.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and Rule 2 CPC in O.S. No.4379/2023 on the file of the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-6) (8Trial Court9 for short), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule 8B9 property. Brief facts: 2. The plaintiff instituted suit for permanent injunction in respect of schedule 8B9 property which forms - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 part of the larger schedule 8A9 property bearing Survey No.220 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas (65,340 square feet) situated at Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, now within the BBMP limits. Out of the said extent, the northern portion measuring 9.5 guntas is carved out. Schedule 8B9 property is a portion of the said northern extent, measuring 30 feet x 50 feet (1500 square feet) with a residential structure. The plaintiff claims title through a sale transaction executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and one Nayana. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application-I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the suit is not maintainable, as the plaintiff is not in possession, and hence, a bare suit is not maintainable and relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 L.Rs and Others1 (Anathula). It is contended that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case, as title itself is seriously disputed and the alleged sale deed is nominally executed only as a security, the identity and extent of the property is also unclear. It is contended that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants/defendants, as they are in actual possession and property contains multiple tenants, family members, including the daughter of defendant No.1 and the grant of injunction causes hardship to the occupants. It is contended that the plaintiff being not in possession, no irreparable injury is caused to the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel further contends that the plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands and a suit based on a false police complaint and false cause of action. It is contended that Ms. Nayana, who is a co-owner and person in possession has not been impleaded and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It is 1 (2008) 4 SCC 594 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 contended that the Trial Court granted injunction without satisfying the three essential ingredients and by misleading evidence. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff supports the impugned order and relies upon the earlier order passed in O.S. No.6267/2023 filed by the daughter of defendant No.1-Nayana for partition and separate possession. Application for injunction in the said suit was rejected on 26.10.2024 and the said order has attained finality and hence, the defendants cannot now dispute the plaintiff's possession. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: 8Whether the plaintiff has established the three essential ingredients: (i) prima facie case, (ii) Balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable injury?= 7. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff has placed on record the registered sale deed dated 27.04.2021, the gift deed dated 05.01.2023 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 supporting revenue and possession documents. On basis of these documents, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in respect of the schedule 8B9 property and that the question whether the sale deed is nominal and was executed as security for a loan is a matter requiring a full-fledged trial and cannot be adjudicated at the interim stage. The Trial Court further held that the plaintiff has established that she is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule 8B9 property. The documents such as katha, electricity connection and tax records stand in her name and the allegation of interference by the defendants was taken note of and the defendants9 claim of possession and co-ownership was not obstructed in the absence of any conclusive material. The Trial Court held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and if an injunction is not granted, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiff has established - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 all the three essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction and accordingly, allowed I.A. No.1. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that one Kumari Nayana, the daughter of defendant No.1 has instituted Suit in O.S. No.6267/2023 seeking partition, separate possession and permanent injunction, wherein the application for temporary injunction came to be rejected by order dated 26.10.2024 and the said order thus attain finality. This Court finds considerable force in the said contention. The rejection of the application for injunction in the said proceedings indicates that the defendants or their family members were unable to establish a prima facie possession over the property even in the suit in O.S. No.6267/2023. The said circumstance lends support to the case of the plaintiff herein that the defendants are not in settled possession of the suit schedule property. Though the said suit is one for partition, the finding recorded therein insofar as it relates to a failure to establish that prima facie possession is a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 relevant circumstance, which can be taken into consideration, while appreciating the rival claims at the interlocutory stage. The conclusion arrived by the Trial Court in holding that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and is entitled for protection of possession is justified. 9. It is also seen from the records that the plaintiff has placed reliance on the registered sale deed dated 27.04.2021 and the gift deed dated 05.01.2023, along with the supporting documents such as katha, tax paid receipts and other documents. At this interlocutory stage, these documents prima facie indicate that the plaintiff has derived title and is in possession of the suit property. 10. The contention of the defendants that the transaction is a nominal sale executed as security for a loan is a matter which requires a full-fledged trial and evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the entire - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 material on record, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and interference with such possession would result in disturbance of the existing state of affairs. 11. It is well settled law that usually the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction ordinarily arises at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violations are both contested and uncertain, and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on the basis of evidence. At this stage, the Court acts on certain well settled principles for administration of this form of interlocutory relief, which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of an interlocutory injunction, it is well settled, is to protect the plaintiff against injury arising from the violation of his rights, for which he could not adequately be compensated by damages recoverable in an action if the uncertainty is ultimately resolved in his favour at the trial. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 12. The Apex Court in the case of Wander Ltd. and Another Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.2 (Wander Ltd.) has held at paragraph No.9 as under: <9. Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well settled principles of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated <...is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need 2 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 against another and determine where the 8balance of convenience9 lies.= The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear on a prima facie case. The court also, in restraining a defendant from exercising what he considers his legal right but what the plaintiff would like to be prevented, puts into the scales, as a relevant consideration whether the defendant has yet to commence his enterprise or whether he has already been doing so in which latter case considerations somewhat different from those that apply to a case where the defendant is yet to commence his enterprise, are attracted.= 13. It is also well settled that when the Trial Court, on consideration of the respective cases of the parties and documents laid before it, is of the view that the entitlement of the plaintiff to an order of interim injunction is in serious doubt, the appellate Court ought not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial judge unless such exercises are found to be palpably incorrect or untenable. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 14. As stated supra, this Court is of the considered view that the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court does not indicate that the view taken is not a possible view and therefore, the interference by the appellate Court with the discretionary order of the Trial Court, in this present facts cannot be entertained, as the order of the Trial Court does not suffer from any arbitrariness, perversity or contrary to the settled principles of law. 15. The Apex Court, in the case of Dalpat Kumar and Another Vs. Prahlad Singh and Others3 (Dalpat Kumar), has observed that the three essential ingredients to be considered while considering granting or refusing an injunction are the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The settled proposition is also that the appellate Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1, can interfere with the findings of the Trial Court, if the Trial Court's order suffers from perversity, illegality and arbitrariness. 3 (1992) 1 SCC 719 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18277 MFA No. 8849 of 2025 16. On the other hand, the order passed by the Trial Court is based on material on record and reflects the proper application of settled principles governing for grant of temporary injunction. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The miscellaneous first appeal is dismissed. ii. The order dated 12.08.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.4379/2023 by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-6) is hereby confirmed. iii. It is made clear that all the observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of the interlocutory application and shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit on its merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58