- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 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. 9658 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRABHAKAR REDDY S/O LATE MUNIPAPAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT: HEELALIGE VILLAGE, CHANDAPURA ROAD, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (NOT CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP) 2. SRI JAGANNATH REDDY.H M S/O LATE MUNIPAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT: BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, HEELALIGE VILLAGE, CHANDAPURA ROAD, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G S BALAGANGADHAR.,ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. S NAGESH.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT MUNIYALLAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIYALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SMT. PREMA, D/O LATE VENKATESH AND YESHODAMMA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 3. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. SMT. NARAYANAMMA, D/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 5. SRI MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 6. BABY NAGAVENI, D/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, 7. BABY DEEPTHI, D/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER MANJUNATHA - DEF.NO.5/RES.NO.5 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7 ARE R/AT RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 8. SRI MANJUNATHA REDDY, S/O CHINNASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HEELALIGE VILLAGE, CHANDAPURA ROAD, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I DEVANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R8; V/O DTD 25.02.2026, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.03.11.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.238/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL DISMISSING THE IA NO.2 AND 3 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for orders, with consent of learned counsel appearing for both parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the order dated 03.11.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 3 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in O.S.No.238/2023 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Anekal, wherein the trial Court dismissed the said application. Brief facts: 4. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and consequential reliefs in respect of the property bearing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 Survey No.23 measuring 1 acre 20 quntas situated at Heelalige Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk (for short 'the suit schedule property'). Along with the suit, plaintiffs have filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the possession and from alienating over the suit schedule property. The trial Court by order dated 03.11.2025, has rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the registered sale deed of the year 1888 in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessor and erroneously relied upon the revenue entries in favour of the defendants. It is contented that the findings recorded by the trial Court are premature and contrary to the settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the defendants have established a continuous chain of title through registered sale deed and are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima-facie case and the suit itself is barred by limitation. 7. This Court has carefully considered the submission on both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 8. It is well settled principle of law that while considering an application for temporary injunction, the Court is required to examine only the existence of a prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and not to adjudicate the rights of the parties conclusively. The Apex Court in the case of WANDER LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. ANTOX INDIA P. LTD.,1 1 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 (WANDER LIMITED) has held that the Appellate Court will interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court and will not exercise with the discretion of the trial Court unless the discretion is shown to be perverse, capricious or arbitrary. Similarly in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of DALPAT KUMAR VS. PRAHALAD SINGH2 (DALPAT KUMAR) has laid down the 'triple test for justice' and to grant an injunction must satisfy a strict 'three-fold test'; (1) the plaintiffs does not have to prove their case 100% yet, but they must show that they have a 'substantial question' to be tried. (2) It should not be a frivolous suit to irreparable loss. This is the most critical part, the Apex Court held that if the injury caused by not granting the injunction can be compensated by money later, then no injunction should be granted. (3) It must be an injury that 'cannot be repaired', 'balance of convenience'. That the Court must act like a literal scale. They must ask, 'who will suffer more'?. 'The plaintiff if I 2 1992(1) SCC 719 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 refuse the injunction or the defendant if I grant it?' and the scale must tip in favour of the plaintiffs. An injunction is an 'equitable relief', and a party does not have a right to it, he has to earn it by proving these three things. In WANDER LIMITED's case (supra), the Apex Court held that granting an injunction is a discretionary power of the trial Court. If the trial Court looked at the facts and reached at a conclusion that is 'reasonably possible', the higher Court cannot change it just because they have decided differently. The higher Court can only interfere if the trial Court's order is perverse, capricious or arbitrary. 9. Case on hand, the trial Court upon considering the pleadings, document and rival contention has recorded the following findings while rejecting I.A.Nos.2 and 3. i Prima-facie case not established: The plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima-facie case though reliance is placed on a registered sale deed of the year 1888, the same is not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 supported by continuous revenue entries or materials to show that the plaintiffs are in possession. ii. Failure to prove possession: The plaintiffs have not produced any cogent materials to demonstrate their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. On the contrary, the revenue records and the documents produced by the defendants indicate their position. iii. The revenue records stand in the name of the defendants and their predecessors for considerable length of time, which supports their case of possession and enjoyment. iv. The defendants have placed a reliance on the series of registered sale deed dating back to 1947, followed by subsequent transactions, which prima-facie established their title and possession. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 v. The trial Court has taken that there is casting serious doubt on the maintainability of the suit at this stage. vi. In view of the failure to establish a prima-facie case, the question of balance of convenience and irreparable injury does not arise in favour of the plaintiffs. 10. On the above reasoning, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for temporary injunction and accordingly, dismissed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. 11. On appreciation of the materials, the trial Court has recorded a finding against the plaintiffs on the aspect of prima-facie case and possession. 12. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the said finding so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15820 MFA No. 9658 of 2025 ORDER i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii) The order dated 03.11.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 3 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in O.S.No.238/2023 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Anekal, is hereby confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10