- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8232 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT BHEEKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 2. SMT. SAKAMMA W/O CHANNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOKKASANDRA VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 3. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT BHEEMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI C.R.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE C.R.RAJAGOPAL REDDY RESIDING AT NO.468/H, 9TH K MAIN, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040 2. SRI. MUNIRAJU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. VANAJA W/O LATE N.MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 3. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 4. SMT. NEELAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5. KUMARI KEERTHANA TRIGUNASHRI D/O LATE N MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT HORAMAVU AGARA VILLAGE AND POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560043. 6. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS SRI. R NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2 CROSS, GANAPATHI LAYOUT, HORAMAVU AGRAHARA VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, K R PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560043. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 7. SMT. R SUNANDA D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2, M.M.CROSS, MARAPPA GARDEN, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU NORTH, BENAGALURU-560046. 8. SRI. R DEVARAJ S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2 CROSS, GANAPATHI LAYOUT, HORAMAVU AGRAHARA VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, K R PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.R.MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 ALONG WITH SRI. S.K.VENKATACHALAPATHI FOR C/R1 VIDE ORDER DATED 06.01.2026, NOTICE TO R2 TO R8 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.01.2026, THIS DAY, AN JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.C.S.Prasanna Kumar., counsel for the appellants and Sri.G.R.Mohan., along with Sri.S.K.Venkatachalapathi., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. 2. For convenience's sake, the parties shall be referred to by their ranking and status before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of property bearing Survey No.67/1, situated at Horomavu Agara Village, K.R. Puram, Hobli. Bangalore East Taluk, a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 29.04.2019 executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendants 6 to 8 is null and void and for consequential permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed ownership through a registered sale deed dated 10.09.2004,said to have been executed in his favour by one Smt.Saraswathamma. The plaintiff applied under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with section 151 of CPC for a temporary injunction. The Trial Court granted an ex-parte temporary injunction. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 defendants filed a written statement, denying the plaint averments. Notably, the defendant Nos. 6 to 8 advanced a unified position, adopting the same contentions (as set out in the written statement) in their objections to the applications. The Trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2025 allowed the applications. Under these circumstances, defendant Nos. 6 to 8 have filed the appeal on several grounds, as set out in the memorandum of appeal. 4. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. Is the Trial Court justified in allowing the applications? 6. Before addressing this point directly, we should first briefly review the basics of a temporary injunction. An injunction is a judicial proceeding whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to the particular person that either prohibits him from doing or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction), or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction). Injunctions are of two kinds: (i) Temporary and (ii) Permanent. A permanent injunction restrains a party forever from doing the specified act and can be granted only on the merits at the conclusion of the trial after hearing both parties to the suit. On the other hand, a temporary or interim injunction restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until further orders of the Court. It is regulated by the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be granted at any stage of the suit. Before granting the temporary injunction, the following considerations are required to be satisfied: (i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 (ii) That irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated for in terms of money. (iii) That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (iv) The conduct of the plaintiff should be fair and honest. 7. Acknowledging the background, the factual data present the following picture. The plaintiff initiated the present suit seeking several reliefs. The main reliefs sought, among others, are for a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 29.04.2019 executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendants 6 to 8 is null and void. 8. Suffice it to note that one Sri.Narayanappa sold land bearing Sy.No.87/1 measuring 1 Acre 17 Guntas to one Sri.Munivenkatappa, who in turn sold the very same land in favor of Smt.Sarawatamma. Crucially, the suit (O.S.NO. 32/2004) instituted by Smt.Saraswathamma for a declaration that she is the absolute owner of Sy.No.67/1 was dismissed on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 December 13 2006, because she had no semblance of right or possession over Sy.No.67/1. The plaintiff purchased the property, i.e., Sy.No.87/1 from Smt.Saraswathamma during the pendency of the suit (O.S.No.32/2004). The law is well settled that a purchaser during litigation is considered a transferee pendente lite, meaning they are bound by the final decree under the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52, Transfer of Property Act). They cannot obstruct execution, as their rights are subservient to the Court's decision, regardless of their knowledge of the suit. The Plaintiff claims absolute title and ownership by virtue of a sale deed executed by Smt.Sarawatamma on 10.09.2004. The transfer occurred during the pendency of the suit, making it subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. The purchaser is a transferee pendente lite and is bound by the result of the suit. The controversy largely centres on the rectification of the survey number and the mutation proceedings (or "entry in the record of rights") in favor of the plaintiff. Considerable argument has been canvassed regarding the rectification of the survey number and the mutation of the plaintiff's name in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 revenue records. Perused the impugned order with care. The Trial Court granted a temporary injunction, holding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case by substituting Survey No. 87/1 with 67/1. There was a fundamental error in Property Identity. The Trial Court erred in granting a temporary injunction by substituting Survey No. 87/1 with 67/1. The injunction granted is based on a fundamental misconception of the property in dispute, which is fatal to the grant of an interim order. The Trial Court erred in law and on the facts by substituting Survey No. 87/1 with Survey No. 67/1 without any supporting evidence. Having concluded that the survey number has not been rectified, the Trial Court erred in substituting survey number 87/1 with 67/1, as there was no admissible evidence or pleaded case to suggest that the mentioned survey number was a mistake. The Trial Judge erred in law by holding that the survey number in the Sale Deed dated 07.07.1956 was wrongly mentioned as 87/1 instead of 67/1, despite having simultaneously recorded a finding that said document has not been rectified, thus acting contrary to law and evidence on record. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 9. I may venture to say that the finding of the Trial Judge that the survey number is 67/1 is perverse and contradictory, as it directly contradicts its own finding that the survey number has not been officially rectified. The Court has erroneously allowed a challenge to a registered document without evidence of a registered rectification deed. Furthermore, the plaintiff explicitly states in a sworn declaration that the survey number in question remains un- rectified. The Trial Court erred in granting an injunction, as the plaintiff’s own sworn declaration establishes a discrepancy in the survey number that clouds the title. To be precise, given the plaintiff’s own admission in the declaration of facts that the survey number has not been rectified, no prima facie case exists to warrant an order of a temporary injunction. Moreover, there is a misapplication of the boundaries Rule; While legal precedent holds that boundaries generally prevail over survey numbers, this does not permit the Court to replace an entirely different survey number (87/1 to 67/1) without proper amendment of pleadings and evidence, as this denies the defendant the opportunity to defend their title to the specific land, 67/1. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 10. For an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff/s must typically demonstrate a prima facie case, the balance of convenience in their favor, and the likelihood of suffering irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. It is a well- settled principle of law that interim relief can always be granted in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or any proceedings. Therefore, a Court undoubtedly possesses the power to grant interim relief during the pendency of the suit. Temporary injunctions are thus injunctions issued during the pendency of the proceedings. The Trial Court has erred in observing that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, as the material and record did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for immediate intervention, nor was the balance of convenience established in the plaintiff's favour. The plaintiff did not satisfy the foundational requirement for temporary relief, particularly failing to make out a prima facie case that warranted such an equitable intervention. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 The power to grant or refuse a temporary injunction rests on the sound exercise of discretion by the Court, which must be based on established principles, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The grant or refusal of a temporary is a matter of judicial discretion, and the Trial Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously and on sound legal principles, establishing a strong prima facie case and balance of conveniences. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside, as it is arbitrary and capricious. The Trial Court arrived at an improper conclusion, which warrants interference from this Court. 11. The plaintiff’s counsel has submitted various documents; however, as this appeal is limited to an interim application, this Court declines to expand its scope to consider them. 12. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated October 18th 2025 passed by the Court of the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru City (CCH-7) on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.4175/2019 is set aside. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5696 MFA No. 8232 of 2025 Because of disposal of the appeal, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.:1 Sl.No.:1