The court established the principle that possession follows title, allowing for an ad-interim injunction to protect a plaintiff's possession of property amid allegations of fraudulent transfer.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri.A. Madhusudhana Rao on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondent/defendant, as notice to the respondent/defendant was not served before the trial Court on the application.

3. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he has filed a suit in OS.No.1097/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kanakapura, for the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs against the respondent/ defendant in respect to the land bearing Survey No. 218/6, measuring 2 acres 27 guntas, along with 5 guntas of kharab land situated at Cheeluru Village, Maralawadi Hobli, earlier Kanakpura Taluk, now Harohalli Taluk.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that a registered deed dated 15.09.2025 came to be executed in favour of the respondent/defendant fraudulently, which is not binding on her, whereas the petitioner/plaintiff was not in India at that time, and she has been residing in the United States of America. She has produced a passport copy to show that she had departed from India on 10.08.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further contends that originally the suit schedule property belonged to one Honnegowda S/o Dasegowda. The property was sold to one Smt.Saraswathamma for a valuable consideration of Rs.60,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 12.10.1992. Thereafter the property was sold in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 and the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any interference from anyone.

6. This being the state of affairs, suddenly the petitioner/plaintiff has realized that there is a registered sale deed dated 15.09.2025, which is fraudulently executed by impersonating the petitioner/plaintiff in the alleged sale deed which has not been executed or entered into by the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff is in custody of the original documents of the sale deed from 12.10.1992 to 27.02.2006. The mutation entries are in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff so also the RTC entries reflect the name of the petitioner. Petitioner had shifted her residence to USA recently in August 2024, to be precise, on 10.08.2024.

7. But however, the fraudulent sale deed has been executed by the respondent/defendant on 15.09.2025, showing the petitioner/plaintiff has entered into a registered sale deed with the respondent/defendant, which is a concocted and fraudulent document by impersonating some other person to be that of the petitioner. So also the brother of the petitioner/plaintiff is fraudulently shown as a witness to the said sale deed.

8. After coming to know of this fraudulent, concocted sale deed executed in favour of the respondent; the petitioner filed a complaint against the said person, who is respondent/defendant on 30.09.2025 and also against two unknown persons under the provisions of Sections 318 , 319, 336 of BNS 2023, which is registered in Crime No. 148/2025 before the Kanakapura Police Station.

9. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that after concocting and fraudulently creating the sale deed, the respondent/defendant has gone further ahead to the survey authorities seeking surveying of the land and for 'hadhbast'. This has forced the petitioner/plaintiff to file the original suit seeking the relief of declaration and consequential reliefs. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed two applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an ad-interim ex- parte order of temporary injunction from interfering with the petitione