- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3868 WP No. 14099 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 14099 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. H NAGARATHNA W/O SRI. T. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A NO.212, 6TH CROSS G.K.W LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATEESH B, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. B.S. HARIKUMAR S/O SUBBA RAO D AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT SAIYADRI CLINIC, BADDRAVATHI MAIN ROAD BADDRAVATHI - 573 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N. ANJAN GOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN M.A.NO.83/2020 PASSED ON 14.06.2022 AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER DTD 23.10.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.1142/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3868 WP No. 14099 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 14.06.2022, captioned as Annexure-J, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Learned Appellate Court"), in M.A. No. 83 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Judgment"). By the impugned judgment, appeal filed by the respondent/defendant seeking to challenge an order, granting temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC") passed by the learned Trial Court on 23.10.2020 in O.S.No.1142/2016 has been allowed. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner for interim injunction has been dismissed by the Learned Appellate Court. 2. None appears for the caveator/respondent, despite service.Given the pendency of the suit since 2016 and stay being granted by this Court on 02.09.2022, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the petition today. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3868 WP No. 14099 of 2022 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the suit schedule property by way of a sale deed dated 17.12.2015 from the previous vendor Smt. Radha and the said sale deed was duly registered as Document No.NGB-1-06955/2015-16 in Book-1 stored in C.D No.NGBD290 registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bangalore. The copy of the sale deed was also produced by the petitioner/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. The plaint further sets out that all revenue documents like, khata certificate by the BBMP are also in favour of the petitioner plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff further sets out in his plaint that the defendant has been interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule property with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and is attempting to illegally trespass into the same. Thus, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present suit. 4. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the CPC was also filed seeking temporary injunction. The learned Trial Court examined the plaint and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3868 WP No. 14099 of 2022 application and by its order dated 23.10.2020 directed that the respondent/defendant his legal heirs, attorneys, representatives, assignees, legatees and persons claiming right through him are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. By this order, summons in the suit were also issued to the respondent/defendant. The respondent entered appearance and filed his written statement. The respondent also filed an appeal seeking to challenge the order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court, wherein it is stated that the respondent/defendant has a better title than the petitioner/plaintiff and that the sale deed of the respondent was in the year 2008 which is much before the sale deed of the plaintiff which is in the year 2015. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property which the petitioner claims to own is different from the property which the respondent claims ownership. He submits that the suit schedule property purchased by the petitioner as described in the plaint comprises of Survey No.66 and 67, described as follows : - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3868 WP No. 14099 of 2022 “SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.15, Β.Β.Μ.Ρ. Khata No.753, Ward No.40, Carved out of Survey No.66 and 67, situated at Andrahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bangaluru, Measuring East to West:40 Feet. North to South:30 Feet, totally measuring 1200 Sq.ft., and bounded on:- East by : Road, West by : Private Property, North by : Site No. 16, South by : Site No. 14.” 6. However, it is contented that the respondent's property is only in Sy.No.66. The learned Appellate Court after examining the documents has given a finding that since there is a cloud over the title of the petitioner and that the respondent has constructed an ACC roofed house, injunction cannot be granted. Thus, the order of the Trial Court has been reversed and the appeal has been allowed. 7. Concededly, both parties are claiming title to the property. In paragraph No.7 of the written statement filed by the respondent, it sets out that the original owners sold part of Survey No.66 to one Lakshmana, son of late Mariyappa under the registered sale deed of the year 2004 and the said Lakshmana sold the site in favour of the defendant by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3868 WP No. 14099 of 2022 registered sale deed of the year 2008. The relevant extract of the written statement is set out below : "7) The true facts of the are that, the original owners namely Obalappa and Hanumanthappa were the absolute owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of the land bearing survey No.66 situated at Andrahalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, have formed the layout and sold site No.15 in favour of one K.M. Lakshmana, son of late Mariyappa, under the registered sale deed dated 11/3/2004 and subsequently the said Lakshmana had sold the said site No. 15 in favour of the defendant under the Registered sale deed dated 27/2/2008 for valuable sale consideration. The said sale deeds are produced for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. On the strength of the said sale deed, the BBMP authorities have accepted the B-khatha in favour of the defendant and also collected updated taxes. The defendant has also put up small shed in the suit property and obtained the electricity connection and thus the defendant is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. When such being the state of affairs, the plaintiff intentionally included the survey No.67 in the sale deed in order to make wrongful gain, even though there is no sites formed in survey No.67 and the suit property craved out of survey No.66. From the above said documents it is clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff only for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of his alleged title. On this score also the Hon'ble court may be pleased to frame a preliminary issue before proceeding further on merits." 8. Concededly, there appears to be a cloud over the title of the petitioner. However, this can only be adjudicated by leading evidence in trial before the learned trial Court. So far as concerns this Court, since the petitioner also claims title to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3868 WP No. 14099 of 2022 property, it would be apposite that during the pendency of the case, at least status quo be maintained with respect to the suit schedule property. 9. Accordingly, the order 14.06.2022, captioned as Annexure-J, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru in MA No.83 of 2020 is set aside. 10. However, since none appeared for the respondent today, let the parties appear before the learned Trial Court on the date already fixed. The trial Court shall examine the issue as to whether the suit schedule properties which have purportedly been sold to both to the petitioner and the respondent are, in fact, the same or whether the petitioner and the respondent own different properties. 11. The rights and contentions of both parties are left open to be agitated before the learned Trial Court. 12. The learned Trial Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 13. The Petition is disposed of with the foregoing directions. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3868 WP No. 14099 of 2022 14. The interim order dated 02.09.2022 shall remain in operation for the next 8 weeks permitting the learned Trial Court to adjudicate on this aspect of the matter. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE RS/BMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA