- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15717 MFA No. 1768 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1768 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI J.M. NIJAGUNA S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SRI. MALLESH J.B, S/O LATE J.M. BASAVANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. SRI J.B. MAHESH KUMAR, S/o LATE J.M. BASAVANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SRI HEMANTH KUMAR J.V. S/O LATE J.M. VIRUPAKSHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 5. SRI J.N. ANIL KUMAR, S/O J.M. NIJAGUNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 6. SMT. YESHODA J.V. D/O LATE J.M. VIRUPAKSHA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT DHANUGALA VILLAGE & POST, BALELE HOBLI, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571216. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI PUTTARAJA C.P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15717 MFA No. 1768 of 2026 AND: 1. SRI CHANGAPPA M.B. S/O LATE M.K. BHIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI KARIAPPA M.B. S/O LATE M.K. BHIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT DHANUGALA VILLAGE AND POST, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571216. BOTH REPRESENTED BY P.A. HOLDER SRI SATHYAKUMAR UDDAPPANDA KAVERAPPA, S/O KAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KANNANGALA VILLAGE, GUYYA POST, VIRAJPETE TALUK, KADAGU-571253. 3. SMT. GUMBIRA HANSA JEEVAN D/O LATE HEMMACHIMANE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DHANUGALA VILLAGE AND POST, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571216. &RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.123/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT VIRAJPET, ALLOWING 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 ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15717 MFA No. 1768 of 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the defendants 1 to 6 calling in question the order dated 13.02.2026 on I.A.No. 1 in O.S. No.123/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Virajpet (8Trial Court9 for short), whereby, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed and defendants have been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Brief facts 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs instituted suit for declaration of title based on a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1992 executed by their father and consequential relief of injunction. 3. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application I.A.No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15717 MFA No. 1768 of 2026 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 from interfering with their possession. 4. The trial Court, while considering the said application, framed the following points for consideration : <1. Whether the plaintiffs have made out prima-facie case for grant of temporary injunction? 2. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiffs? 3. If the injunction is not granted, who will be put to irreparable loss and injury? 4. What order?= 5. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, allowed the application holding that: (i) the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. (ii) balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs and (iii) if an injunction is not granted, irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15717 MFA No. 1768 of 2026 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants- defendants would submit that the defendants are in settled possession by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 06.03.2025. The revenue records stands in their names and the plaintiffs are not in possession. The sale deed dated 16.05.1992 is not binding on the defendants. It is submitted that the trial Court has totally failed to properly appreciate the material on record and has erroneously granted injunction without establishing the essential ingredients. 7. This Court has carefully considered the submission and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is, <Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference?= 8. On perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that plaintiffs rely upon a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1992, and claim title and possession through - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15717 MFA No. 1768 of 2026 their predecessor. The records further discloses that the defendants have entered their names in the revenue records and have executed a partition deed dated 06.03.2025. 9. The dispute between the parties clearly discloses competing claims of title and possession, which requires adjudication in a full fledged trial. The law is well settled that, (i) a temporary injunction order can be granted when there is a serious dispute to be tried in the Court (ii) there is a probability of the plaintiffs being entitled to the relief asked for in the plaint. The Court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the injury. (iii). The comparative hardship and inconvenience that is likely to occur while withholding the injunction order will be of greater than that would be likely to be acted from granting it. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15717 MFA No. 1768 of 2026 10. At the stage of considering the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Court is required to examine whether a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are made out. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material has recorded a finding that: i. There exists serious triable issues between the parties ii. The plaintiffs have established a prima facie case based on a registered sale deed iii. The balance of convenience lies in favour of protecting the existing state of affairs and iv. Denial of injunction would result in irreparable injury. 11. The scope of interference in an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 and 2 CPC is limited. Unless the order of the Trial Court is shown to be perverse, arbitrary or - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15717 MFA No. 1768 of 2026 suffering from illegality, the appellate Court would not interfere with the discretionary order. 12. In the present case, the Trial Court has applied the settled principles of law governing the grant of temporary injunction and has exercised its discretion judicially. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court. Accordingly, 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 passed by the trial Court on I.A.No. 1 is confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57