- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3081 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE SIDDARAMAKKA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572101. 2. SMT. ANNAPURNAMMA D/O LATE BASAVARAJU W/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572101. 3. SRI SIDDARAJU .B S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572101. 4. SRI PANCHAKSHARAIAH .B S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MADHUSUDHAN M.N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI PARAMESH S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT KURAMKOTE VILLAGE C.N.DURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572129. 2. SRI. SHIVAMMA D/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT KURAMKOTE VILLAGE C.N.DURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572129. 3. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA D/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT KURAMKOTE VILLAGE C.N.DURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572129. 4. SRI NIJAGUNA S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KURAMKOTE VILLAGE C.N.DURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572129. 5. SRI SHIVA S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT KURAMKOTE VILLAGE C.N.DURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572129. 6. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT KHODIHALLI VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572128. 7. SMT. PUSHPAVATHI D/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT KHODIHALLI VILLAGE KORA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572128. 8. SMT. SHOBHA D/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT KHODIHALLI VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572128. 9. SMT. ASHA D/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT KHODIHALLI VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572128. 10. SRI SHIVAPRASAD S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT KHODIHALLI VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572128. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 11. SMT. VEENA D/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT KURAMKOTE VILLAGE C.N.DURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572129. 12. SRI UMESH S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KURAMKOTE VILLAGE C.N.DURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572129. 13. SMT. DODDALAKKAMMA W/O LATE HENJARAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572101. 14. SMT. Y. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE HENJARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572101. 15. SRI SIDDARAMAIAH S/O LATE HENJARAPPA AGED BOUT 49 YEARS R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572101. 16. SMT. KALPANA R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE D/O LATE HENJARAPPA, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572101. 17. SMT. K.A. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE NANDAKUMAR AGED BOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT KURMAGIRI, 16TH CROSS NEAR MARUTHI VIDHYA KENDRA SS PURAM, TUMAKURU PIN-572101. 18. SRI DHONTHI N SAPTHAGIRI S/O LATE NANDAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT KURMAGIRI, 16TH CROSS NEAR MARUTHI VIDHYA KENDRA SS PURAM, TUMAKURU PIN-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. BASAVARAJ, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI UDAY SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-17 & R-18; V/O. DATED 28.08.2025 NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-5, R-7, R-8, R-9, R-11 & R-12 D/W; V/O. DATED 02.09.2025, NOTICE TO R-10 D/W; V/O. DATED 09.09.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE IN R/O R-13 TO R-16 ARE H/S; NOTICE TO R-6 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.168/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This miscellaneous first appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the order dated 14.03.2025 passed on I.A. No.5/2025 in O.S. No.168/2023 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be rejected. Brief facts: 2. The subject matter of the suit is Survey No.100 (Now Sy. Nos.100/4 and 100/7) measuring 4 acres 27 guntas originally belonging to Ramaiah. The plaintiffs contend that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family property. On the other hand, the contesting defendants claimed title through Nandakumar, who entered into an agreement dated 02.05.1985 with Henjarappa and subsequently, filed a suit for specific performance in O.S. No.70/1992, which initially was dismissed. In R.A. No.2/2001 filed by Nandakumar, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 appeal was allowed, the suit was decreed and the same has attained finality. The challenge by the legal representatives of Henjarappa in the RSA was dismissed on 19.09.2008. Pursuant thereto, a Court sale deed dated 29.03.2007 was executed in favour of Nandakumar. After his demise on 22.09.2020, the properties stood in the name of his legal heirs. The properties were thereafter converted for non-agricultural use on 13.06.2022, layout was sanctioned on 05.04.2023 and work commencement order was issued on 25.10.2024. It is also on record that the husband of appellant No.1 had earlier filed O.S. No.48/1985 for partition, which came to be dismissed on 15.03.1990. In the present suit, the plaintiffs had earlier filed I.A. No.II seeking restraint against alienation, which was dismissed on 09.08.2023. Thereafter, I.A. No.5/2025 is filed seeking to restrain the defendants from cutting trees and to maintain status quo which is rejected leading to the present appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 3. Sri Madhusudhan M.N., learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and that the defendants are attempting to alter the nature of the property by cutting trees. It is contended that the trial Court has erred in rejecting I.A. No.5/2025 by mechanically relying on the earlier order passed on I.A. No.2, without appreciating the relief sought is distinct. 4. Per contra, Sri S. Basavaraj, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Uday Shankar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.17 and 18 would contend that they derived title through a Court sale deed and decree which have attained finality. It is further contended that the earlier suit O.S. No.48/1985 for partition filed by the husband of appellant No.1 was dismissed. I.A. No.II filed for restraint against alienation was also dismissed and the same was not challenged. The present application is barred by the principles akin to res judicata and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 appellants have failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A. No.5/2025 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC?” 6. At the outset, it is to be stated that it is well settled that an appellate Court, while dealing with an order granting or refusing temporary injunction, does not sit as an appeal of first instance and will not substitute its own discretion for that of the trial Court unless the discretion exercised is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse or where the Court has ignored the settled principles governing the grant of injunction. The Appellate Court is only required to examine whether the discretion exercised by the trial Court is reasonable and plausible on the material available and not whether another view is possible. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 7. This view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Wander Ltd. and Another Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.1 (Wander Limited), wherein paragraph No.14, it is held as under: “14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it 1 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph: (SCR 721) “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.” 8. In the present case, the trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, has recorded the following findings: i. That the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case, inasmuch as the defendants have placed - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 material to show derivation of title through a decree for specific performance and a Court-executed sale deed. ii. The trial Court took note of the fact that the earlier application-I.A. No.II seeking similar relief or protection over the suit property was dismissed on 09.08.2023 and the said order having attained finality, the present application-I.A. No.5/2025 is a repetitive one. iii. It is further held that no new or supervening circumstances are pleaded so as to warrant reconsideration of the issue of interim protection. On the aspect of balance of convenience, the trial Court found that the defendants are in possession and have undertaken development activities pursuant to conversion, layout approvals and therefore, the balance of convenience tilts in their favour. iv. The trial Court also held that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated any irreparable injury, as the allegation of cutting trees are not substantiated by cogent evidence. The trial Court accordingly concluded that the application - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 is hit by principles akin to res judicata, and the plaintiffs are not entitled for relief of temporary injunction and consequently, dismissed I.A. No.5/2025. 9. At the outset, this Court finds that though reliefs sought in I.A. No.II and I.A. No.5/2025 are couched in different language, in substance, they are one and the same. In I.A. No.II, the plaintiffs sought an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. In I.A. No.5/2025, the relief is framed as restraining the defendants from cutting trees and seeking maintenance of status quo. However, a careful consideration, it is evident that both the applications are founded on the same apprehension, namely, i. Alleged interference by the defendants and ii. The need to protect the suit property pending adjudication of the rights. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 10. The underlying issue in both the applications is the plaintiffs’ assertion of right, title and possession over the suit property and their entitlement to interim protection. The change in phraseology from ‘alienation’ to ‘cutting of trees / status quo’ does not alter the core relief, which is essentially to restrain the defendants from dealing with or altering the nature of the property. 11. In view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the present application is nothing but a reiteration of the earlier prayer for interim protection, which has already been considered and rejected in I.A No.II. Once the earlier application seeking protection over the suit property has been dismissed and attained finality, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issue indirectly by only modifying the words of the relief. 12. The Apex Court, in the case of Chhabil Das Vs. Pappu2 (Chhabil Das) has held that principle of res 2 (2006) 12 SCC 41 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 judicata applies even at different stages of the same proceedings and issues once decided cannot be reopened in the absence of new or supervening circumstances. 13. In the present case, no such circumstances are either pleaded or demonstrated. Therefore, the bar operates. It is also relevant to consider the material on record, which clearly discloses that the suit schedule property was originally belonged to Ramaiah. An Agreement of sale was executed in favour of Nandakumar, which ultimately culminated in a decree in the suit for specific performance filed by Nandakumar and the rights flowing from the decree stood crystallized and attained finality. Subsequently, in execution of the decree, a Court- executed sale deed was registered in favour of Nandakumar. The property has been converted to non- agricultural land, layout plan has been sanctioned and work commencement order has ben issued. Defendant Nos.17 and 18 are the legal heirs of the said Nandakumar. It is also not in dispute that a partition suit in O.S. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 No.48/1985 was filed by the predecessors of the appellants, which ultimately came to be dismissed on 15.03.1990 and the present suit has been instituted arraying the purchaser's legal heirs as parties. 14. In light of the final decree for specific performance, the Court-executed sale deed, and the subsequent revenue entries and development permission, this Court finds that the appellants have failed to establish any prima facie right over the suit schedule property and the balance of convenience lies in favour of respondent/defendant Nos.17 and 18 and the balance of convenience tilts heavily in favour of the respondents. 15. The trial Court has considered all these aspects and rejected the application. There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court warranting any interference. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21196 MFA No. 3081 of 2025 ORDER i. The miscellaneous first appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. The impugned order dated 14.03.2025 passed on I.A. No.5/2025 in O.S. No.168/2023 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru is hereby confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56