IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3947 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. JAWAHAR GOPAL S/O GOPAL RAMANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RAMKRUPA, 6^TH MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 009

2. SMT. SHEELA GOPAL W/O GOPAL RAMANARAYAM AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS RAMKRUPA, 6^TH MAIN ROAD GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 009 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER MR. JAWAHAR GOPAL AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location : High PRESENTLY BOTH THE APPELLANTS Court of ARE RESIDENTS AT NO.21 Karnataka 3^RD FLOOR, RAMAKRIPA BENSON CROSS, OPPOSITE MILLER'S ROAD BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU 560 046 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. VISHAL BALIGA D S/O DINESH BALIGA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.56/3 MADHURI, BOREWELL ROAD BANGALORE NORTH, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE-560 066 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 02.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NOS. I AND II IN O.S.NO. 1708/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, ALLOWING THE IA.NOS 1 AND 2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc. First Appeal is filed under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC, 1908 by the appellants challenging the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, in OS No.1708/2024 whereby, the learned trial Court allowed the IA's 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec.151 of CPC, restraining the defendants their men, agents and anyone claiming through or under them from interfering with the respondents possession with the suit schedule property and also from cutting and removing standing trees in the said property pending disposal of the suit.

2. The primary contentions of Sri.Dhananjay Joshi learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in the present appeal is that, they are the lawful owners and in possession of the plaint such property by virtue of registered sale dead 6.9.2005 executed by appellant no.1, acting under a (GPA) said to have been executed by late Smt.Sharada Baliga i.e., the grand mother of the respondent in the year 1995. The appellants further contend that, the revenue records reflect their names, the General Power of Attorney is genuine and that their title was indirectly affirmed in earlier litigation culminating before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The appellants further submit that, the respondent has failed to establish a prima facie case and learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the documents and the legal position correctly while granting the injunction.

3. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that, the reasoning of the trial Court and specifically contend that, by virtue of the power of attorney, the appellant no.1 has executed the sale deed and the same is not challenged by any of the parties much less, the respondent. He relied upon various documents produced by the appellants in this appeal and submits that, the plaintiff respondent is no way concerned to the schedule-B property at any point of time and falsely claiming right over the property alleged to have been executed by his grand mother Sharada Baliga dated 10.1.1994. He would submit that, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in believing the video clip produced by the respondent alleging that, there was attempt of dispossession of plaintiff from suit schedule property by using anti-social elements with the help of police. Repeatedly the respondent is submitting about alleged high handed act of anti-social elements and