- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.52 OF 2026 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI N. SATISH S/O LATE N.K.N. GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.204/A, “SAMARPAN” 55TH CROSS ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI T.S. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI NARASIMHAIAH .O S/O. LATE OBALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. SRI O. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. LATE OBALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.53/2, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, CHANDRASHEKAR LAYOUT, SRIGANDHADA KAVALU, BANGALORE-560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHANKAR G., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.5393/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-2, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed assailing the Order dated 10.10.2025 passed in O.S.No.5393/2025, by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-2) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC came to be allowed, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit's schedule property pending disposal of the suit. 2. Facts in nutshell is that the plaintiff instituted Suit O.S.No.5393/2025, seeking a relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property bearing Site No.59A formed in Sy.No.21/1, measuring East-West 30 feet, North-South 40 feet, in all measuring 1200 square feet, bounded to the East Site No.114-4, West by private - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 land, North by Site No.59, South by road (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’ for short). 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said suit schedule property was purchased by their mother under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2002 and after her demise, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the property and are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that defendant, who claims to be the owner over the adjacent property bearing Site No.114-4, has been attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and has made attempt to put up construction and demolish the existing compound wall. In that view of the matter, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction. 4. The defendant entered appearance and contested the matter, contending that he is the absolute owner in possession of Site No.114/A under a registered sale deed dated 17.05.2004 and the plaintiffs are trying to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 encroach upon his property. It is contended that there exists a dispute regarding boundary and extent of the boundary properties and therefore a suit for bare injunction was not maintainable without seeking declaration. 5. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record, observed that the plaintiffs have produced registered sale deed of 2002 and the documents produced support possession and the prima facie case has been established by the plaintiffs. The existence and location of the suit schedule property was not seriously disputed by the defendant. The dispute pertains to the adjacent properties within the same layout and at this stage detailed adjudication of title is not warranted. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour and refusal of injunction would result in irreparable loss. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court granting temporary injunction is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the material on record and hence liable to be set aside. It is contended that the appellant is the absolute owner in possession of Site No.114/A by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 17.05.2004, and the documents produced by the appellant clearly evidences his lawful possession. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the core dispute between the parties is with regard to the boundary measurement and identity of the property and therefore a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration. It is contended that the plaintiffs are attempting to encroach upon the appellant’s property under the guise of adjoining ownership and the alleged interference is in fact by the plaintiffs and not by the defendant. 7. It is further contended that the Trial Court finding that the plaintiffs have established prima facie - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury is contrary to the material on record and suffers from non- application of mind. It is contended that there is a serious dispute with regard to the title, possession and identification of the property and in such circumstances, the relief of injunction ought not to have been granted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court: i. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) By LRS. And Others1 (Anathula Sudhakar). ii. Sanjay Paliwal and Another Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Through Its Executive Director2 (Sanjay Paliwal). iii. Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd.3 1 (2008) 4 SCC 594 2 AIR 2026 SC 549 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 iv. Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Others4 (Vidur Impex). 9. It is contended that where there exists a cloud over title and dispute regarding possession, a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable and proper remedy is to seek a declaration and possession. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court needs to be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs supports the impugned order and submits that the suit schedule property is bearing Site No.59/A purchased by the plaintiffs’ mother under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2002, much prior to the sale deed in favour of the defendant, who claims to be the owner of the property bearing Site No.114/A, which is adjacent to the plaintiffs’ property. The plaintiffs have 3 (2010) 7 SCC 417 4 (2012) 8 SCC 384 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 produced possession certificate, khata, tax paid receipts, and NOC, which clearly establish possession. It is contended that the defendant has no matter of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and he is only an adjacent owner of Site No.114/A attempting to interfere with the possession of the suit schedule property. An attempt made by the defendant to demolish the compound wall and interfere with possession necessitated filing of the suit. 11. It is further contended that the Trial Court has appreciated the material on record and held that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the denial of injunction would cause irreparable injury. It is contended that questions of fact relating to boundary and title cannot be adjudicated at an interlocutory stage and therefore the Trial Court has rightly exercised the discretionary power and granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.1 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs warranting interference?” 13. It is well settled law that an order of temporary injunction is discretionary order and the appellate Court would interfere, if such discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, perversely or contrary to the settled proposition. Bearing in mind the settled proposition of law, the impugned order is perused. The plaintiffs claim their title under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2002, possession certificate, khata and tax paid receipts to prima facie establish possession over the suit schedule property. The defendant claims to be the adjoining site owner of Site No.114/A. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 14. The dispute between the parties is essentially with regard to a boundary, extent and interse between the adjoining site owners. The disputed questions cannot be conclusively adjudicated at interlocutory stage and are required to be decided only at a full-fledged trial. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court, which are distinguishable for the following reasons: i. The Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar has clearly laid down that a bare suit for injunction is maintainable only when possession is established and title is not seriously in dispute. Where there is a cloud over title or dispute regarding possession, among the proper remedy is to file a suit for declaration and consequential relief. The plaintiffs have produced the registered sale deed of the year 2002, possession certificate, khata - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 and tax paid records to prima facie established possession. The Trial Court has not yet adjudicated the title finally, but only protected the possession pending trial. The said judgment falls where prima facie possession is sufficient for interim protection. ii. In Sanjay Paliwal, the Apex Court found serious dispute regarding title, possession and identity of property and that there was no clear identification of the disputed land or wall and the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the structure was on their land and the Apex Court held that in such circumstances, the suit for mandatory injunction without possession was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In the present case, the existence and location of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 suit schedule property is not seriously disputed. The plaintiffs produced evidence of possession which has been accepted by the Trial Court and Trial Court granted temporary injunction and not a decree for mandatory or final adjudication. The relief granted is at a threshold, wherein a status quo is required to be maintained till trial. iii. In Mumbai International Airport and Vidur Impex, is in regard to the impleadment and non-joinder of necessary parties. 15. These judgments are not applicable at this stage to the controversy involved. In the considered view of this Court, the reliance placed on the judgments do not advance the case of the appellant for warranting interference with the discretionary power of the Trial Court, wherein the Trial Court found that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case and the dispute is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 interse between the adjacent site holders and the Trial Court exercised discretion only to protect the prosecution pending trial. 16. The discretionary exercised by the Trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. 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 10.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.5393/2025 by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-2) is hereby confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74