- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR M.F.A. NO.827 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W. M.F.A. NO.7210 OF 2025 (CPC) IN MFA No.827/2025 BETWEEN: SRI DHANARAM S/O. SRI GOPARAMJI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.E-536/2, OPP. BBMP OFFICE, JAYANTHI NAGAR, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560043. &APPELLANT (BY SRI K. P. BHUVAN, ADV. FOR SRI. ATHMA V. HIREMATH A/W. SRI SAIPRAKASH V. SURYAVANSHI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI T. NATESH S/O. LATE THIMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SRI ABHILASH K. N. S/O. T. NATESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.17, 6TH CROSS, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, BABUSAB PLAYA, KALYANANAGARA POST,BENGALARU-560043. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. H. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON9BLE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-12) IN O.S. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 NO.7201/2024 AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HON9BLE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-12) ON I.A.NO.2, 3 AND 4 IN O.S.NO.7201/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED BY THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W. SECTION 151 OF CPC AND I.A.NO.3 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2A R/W.SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER AND ETC. IN MFA NO.7210/2025 BETWEEN: SRI DHANARAM S/O. SRI GOPA RAMJI, AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.E-536/2, OPP. BBMP OFFICE, JAYANTHI NAGAR, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560043. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI S. RAJU, ADV. FOR SRI ATHMA V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SRI T. NATESH S/O. LATE THIMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SRI ABHILASH K. N. S/O. T. NATESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.17, 6TH CROSS, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, BABUSAB PLAYA, KALYANANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560043. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. H. SHETTY, ADVOCATE.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON9BLE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-12) IN O.S.NO.7201/2024 AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HON9BLE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-12) ON I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.7201/2024 I.E., I.A.NO.3 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 2A READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AS ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2A OF CPC IS PREMATURE AND THEREBY REJECTED AS PREMATURE AND INFRUCTUOUS AND CONSEQUENTLY BY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED BY THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF TO CONSIDER I.A.NO.3 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2A R/W. SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER REGISTERED A SEPARATE CIVIL MISC. PETITION AND ETC. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT MFA No.827/2025 is filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 19081 dismissing the application filed by him for restraining the defendants and their agents, men or any other persons from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and allowing the 1 Hereinafter referred to as 8CPC9, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 I.A.No.4 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. 2. MFA No.7210/2025 is filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of CPC dismissing the application filed by him for punishing the defendants for having violated the order of temporary injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants their agents servants of any other persons from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner and possession over the suit schedule property bearing site No.1, Khatha No.131/6/1, formed out property No.136/6, situated at Horamavu village, K R Puram Hobli, Bengaluru east, measuring 40 X 40 totally - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 1600 square feet, which is described in the suit, as a suit schedule property. 4. It is a case of plaintiff that he has purchased suit property through a registered sale deed from the vendors i.e., Ramaiah family through a registered sale deed dated 07.02.2017. The plaintiff pleaded that Ramaiah S/o Muniswamappa was owner of the land Sy.No.133/6 totally measuring 1 Acre 28 Guntas and formed layout by forming 45 sites by obtaining order of conversion on 6.02.1972. The said Ramaiah has sold the suit site to one P.P.Devassy through a registered sale deed dated 02.12.1988. The case of plaintiff that the daughter of Ramaiah have filed suit for partition O.S.No.15923/2003 and during pendency the said suit, the above said P.P.Devassy has sold the property to one Aravind Bhai D Patel through registered sale deed dated 28.05.2005 changing the property No.133/6 instead of 133/1. The said Aravind Bhai D Patel had two sons and wife namely Damyanti A Patel. Damayanthi Patel and her two sons - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 have sold property to the defendants through registered sale deed dated 19.01.2024. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that Ramaiah family members have executed General power of attorney in favour of B Bhagyalakshmi, who is daughter of Ramaiah on 17.04.2017 and it is not registered one. The said Ramaiah family have executed registered sale of the entire land parcel consisting of 45 sites in which the suit property is also one of the property to one K M Nagaraj s/o Munishammappa and it is registered the sale. Further, B Bhagyalakshmi has executed deed of confirmation in favour of Damyanti A Patel w/o Aravind Bhai D Patel. It is stated that Damyanti A Patel has executed registered sale deed in favour of T Natesh and Abhilash K N on 19.01.2024. 6. Therefore, it is case of the plaintiff that he has become absolute owner property through registered sale deed dated 07.12.2017, whereas the defendant purchased the property on 19.01.2024. But it is the case of plaintiff - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 that daughter of Ramaiah filed OS No.15923/2003 which is decreed in the year 2009 and thereafter FDP No.25001/2010 is filed, in FDP each family member of Ramaiah have obtained 17 guntas of land. Thus, when the daughter Ramaiah namely B Bhagyalakshmi have acquired 17 guntas of land and plaintiff had purchased the property on 07.12.2017, thus he acquired for title. 7. Upon service of summons the defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that Ramaiah was owner of the land to the extent of 1 acre 28 guntas and obtained permission for conversion of land and formed layout and 45 sites were formed and one among them site No.1 was sold out to one P P Devassy on 02.12.1988 and the said P P Devassy has sold the property to one Aravind Bhai D Patel through registered sale deed dated 28.05.2005 and thereafter the defendants purchased the said property on 19.01.2024. Therefore, the defendant9s title is flowing from Ramaiah and who has formed layout and sold the site in favour of PP Devassy. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 Therefore, in this line the title of defendant is flowing and thereafter the daughter of Ramaiah has filed suit for partition which is collusive in nature and though the daughter of Ramaiah had obtained decree in O.S.No.15923/2003, but the order passed in FDP No.25001/2010 is set aside by the High Court of Karnataka and remanded the case to the trial Court. But after remand and restoration, the said suit came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 08.03.2019. Therefore, the question of title is involved in the case and the suit filed for bare injunction is not maintainable. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit and the application filed for temporary injunction. 8. Earlier, the trial Court has granted ex-parte ad interim temporary injunction and after contesting the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC the said ad interim temporary order of injunction was vacated. But it is the case of the plaintiff that during subsistence of order of ex-parte temporary injunction, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 defendant has violated the temporary injunction and started construction. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.3 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of CPC. 9. The trial Court has dismissed all applications filed by the plaintiff and allowed the application filed by defendants, on the reasons that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact that the filing of O.S.No.15923/2003 and subsequent the setting aside the decree and also order passed in F.D.P No.25001/2010 and after remand of OS No.15923/2003 is dismissed for non prosecution. All these facts that have been suppressed, therefore assigning these reasons dismissed applications of plaintiff. Further observed that there is a dispute regarding title and therefore the bare suit for mere permanent injunction is not maintainable. 10. Further observed that the defendants are proved to be in possession therefore the plaintiff failed to make out prima facie case and balance and convenience and if ad-temporary injunction is granted, that would - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 cause more harm or injury to the defendants than the plaintiff. Therefore, on all reasons dismissed the applications. 11. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the applications, the plaintiff has preferred these two appeals. 12. Having heard arguments on both sides the following points would arises for consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in his favour? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that the balance of convenience lies in his favour? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that if the temporary injunction is not granted, he will be put to irreparable injury and loss than the defendants. iv. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that defendants have violated ex-parte order dated 22.10.2014 as per I.A.No.4? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has purchased the property on 07.12.2017 from the daughter of Ramaiha namely B B Bhagyalakshmi, whereas, the defendant purchase the property on 19.02.2024 which is later to plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience that he acquired the title earlier to defendants. Further submitted that the daughter of Ramaiah filed O.S.No.15923/2003 for partition and separate possession and it was decreed and in FDP No.25001/2010 each family members of Ramaiah have got 17 guntas of land. There is no competency of Ramaiah to make sale deed in favour of P P Devassy. After decreeing the suit and land obtained in the FDP proceedings, the daughter of Ramaiah executed registered sale deed in the year 2017 in favour of the plaintiff, whereas, the sale deed of defendant is on 19.01.2024. Therefore, the plaintiff has acquired title of the property earlier to the defendants. Hence, prayed for ad interim temporary injunction. But the trial Court had - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 dismissed the applications without considering the materials which constitute prima facie case and balance of convenience, therefore prays to grant ad interim temporary injunction. 14. Further, arguing on the MFA No.7210/2025 during subsistence of ex-parte temporary injunction defendants have started construction. Therefore, there is violation of ad interim temporary injunction. But, the trial Court without considering the same and even without making any observation on I.A.No.3 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A r/w Section 151 of CPC just dismissed the application. Therefore, prays to allow both appeals. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants submitted that there is dispute regarding the title between plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff claiming the title from the year 2017 whereas the defendants are claiming title through the registered sale deeds executed by Ramaiha in favour of P P Devassy in the year 1988. Therefore, the defendants title is trace out - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 through Ramaiah, whereas plaintiff title is traced out through daughter of Ramaiah namely B Bhagyalakshmi. Then when this being the dispute regarding the title bare suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. 16. Further submitted the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.15923/2003 and FDP No.25001/2010 is dismissed and remanded to the trial Court, but after remand, O.S.No.15923/2003 is dismissed for non prosecution. These facts are suppressed by the plaintiff in the plaint. Therefore, it is submitted that fact ousts to claim equitable relief for injunction therefore justified order passed by trial Court and prays to dismiss both the appeals. 17. Upon considering the plaint averments and written statement averments it is found that there is a rival dispute over title and ownership. It is undisputed fact that Ramaiah was the original owner of the land No.133/6, measuring 1 acre 28 guntas. In the year 1972 Ramaiah has obtained order of conversion for formation of layout - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 and formed 45 sites and the said Ramaiah has sold the suit site extent 1600 square feet to one P P Devassy through registered sale deed dated 02.12.1988. The defendant is claiming the title through this formation of layout and one site sold by Ramaiah to one P P Devassy and P P Devassy had purchased the said property on 02.12.1988 and has sold the suit property to one Aravind Bhai D Patel on 28.05.2005 through registered sale deed. The wife of Aravind Bhai Patel namely Damayanthi Patel and his two sons have inherited said property and they have sold the said property to defendant on 19.01.2024. Therefore, the defendant is claiming title through Ramaiah who has formed layout and sold the site to vendor of the defendants. 18. Whereas, it is the case of plaintiff that one of the daughters of Ramaiah had filed suit in O.S.No.15923/2003 before the Mayo Hall Court, Bengaluru and it was decreed in the year 2009, which is culminated in FDP No.25001/2010. One of the purchasers of property - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 had filed RFA No.686/2017 and RFA No.759/2017 and this Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed in the above suit and the order passed in FDP proceedings and remanded the suit to the Trial Court. But thereafter the said suit O.S.No.15923/2003 is dismissed for non prosecution and there is no material that the above said suit was restored. It is the case of the plaintiff that children of Ramaiah had obtained 17 guntas of land each in the FDP proceedings. It is the case of plaintiff that when in FDP proceedings Bhagyalakshmi had obtained 17 guntas of land and suit schedule site is coming within the said 17 guntas of land, thus it is contended that he has acquired title from Bhagyalakshmi. 19. RFA No.686/2017 and RFA No.759/2017 were disposed of in the year 2018. Therefore, whether the plaintiff had suppressed the facts or not is within the knowledge of the plaintiff, which is matter of trial. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the plaintiff suppressed setting aside the decree passed in the suit. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 20. Even that be so, upon considering the dispute regarding title, the defendants title is traced out through the dates when Ramaiah has formed layout after conversion of the land and sold to one Devassy in the year 1988. Subsequently, the daughters of Ramaiah have filed suit for partition and obtained decree in FDP No.25001/2010 for 17 guntas of land i.e., subsequent to the sale effected by Ramaiah. Therefore, here there are two rival disputes. Under these circumstances, mere suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. Therefore, when the suit for above mentioned relief is not maintainable, there is no question of considering the case of plaintiff when the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of plaintiff. 21. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for defendant, against judgment and decree passed in the suit and order passed in FDP proceedings, RFA No.686/2017 and RFA No.759/2017 are filed and preliminary decree passed in the suit and the order passed - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 in FDP proceedings are set aside. Therefore, here there is cloud shrouded on the title of plaintiff. When this being the facts, mere suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in not granting the relief of temporary injunction. Therefore, the appeal filed by the plaintiff, in MFA No.827/2025 is liable to be dismissed by answering the point No.1 to 3 in the negative. 22. So far as MFA No.7210/2025 is concerned, which is against the order passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC that it is allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant has started construction over the schedule site after the Trial Court has granted ex-parte temporary injunction. Considering these averments, the Trial Court has not whispered anything on I.A.No.3 while dealing with the said application. There is no discussion regarding when the ex-parte injunction order was granted and what was material to show that the defendant has violated the order of temporary injunction and without - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 making discussion on the above stated I.A.No.3, simply the Trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the application I.A.No.3. Therefore, without any observation regarding whether the defendant has violated the order of temporary injunction or not, but straightway dismissed I.A.No.3, which is found to be perverse and not correct one. Therefore, order passed dismissing I.A.No.3 is liable to be set aside and I.A.No.3 is hereby liable to be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and the Trial Court is directed to make enquiry on I.A.No.3 and take appropriate decision as per law. Therefore, MFA No.7210/2025 is liable to be allowed. Hence, point No.4 is answered accordingly. 23. However, the plaintiff is reserved liberty to file comprehensive suit for declaration or to make application for amendment in the present plaint for seeking relief of declaration and further reliefs and in such an event the Trial Court is directed to deal with the application as per law. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2083 MFA No. 827 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7210 of 2025 24. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal in MFA No.827/2025 is dismissed. ii. The appeal in MFA No.7210/2025 is allowed. iii. The order dated 10.01.2025, passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.7201/2024 is hereby set aside. iv. I.A.No.3 filed under Order 39 rule 2A of CPC is hereby remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and pass appropriate orders and to conduct enquiry, as per law. v. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE ASN-para 1 to 17. MRK-para 18 to end. CT-AN. List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4