IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8225/2024 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI K. DHARMENDRA S/O M. KRISHNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.81 GPR GRAND LAYOUT HOSUR MAIN ROAD OLD CHANDAPURA ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560099. … APPELLANT (BY SRI C.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K P BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI GOPINATH MUPPIRI S/O LATE M. KRISHNAMMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO.46, DESAI GRADEN VASANTHPURA MAIN ROAD KONANKUNTE CROSS KANAKAPURA ROAD BANGALORE-560062 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI AJITH A. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NOS.1/2024 AND 2/2024 IN O.S.NO.25367/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-58), REJECTING I.A. NO.1/2024 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE I.A.2/2024 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC FOR VACATING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION GRANTED ON 23.04.2024.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.12.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1/2024 and 2/2024 in O.S.No.2536/2024 by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru wherein the Trial Court rejected I.A.No.1/2024 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and allowed I.A.No.2/2024 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having acquired the same under the Gift Deed dated 07.12.2023 and pursuant to the Gift Deed, katha was transferred in his name and gift deed was acted upon and all relevant documents are standing in the name of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. It is contended that defendant being the greedy person, for a wrongful gain, has started to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment and along with his henchmen, came near the suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff, for which, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction and also filed an application for temporary injunction as sought in I.A.No.1/2024.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant filed a memo praying to adopted the written statement as objection to I.A.No.1/2024 wherein he has seriously disputed the execution of the Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff and also contended that the donor has already filed a suit in O.S.No.2043/2002 and O.S.No.25367/2024 is pending before the Court, in which, the very donor has filed the suit against the original vendor for possession and hence, the same shows that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property since the very donor was not in possession. It is contended by the defendant that hy became the owner of he said property bearing No.532/4 and 532/5 through registered sale deed. It is also contended that even though the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, created the gift deed and filed a false suit and even title is also not perfected and approached the Court to dismiss the application and also filed I.A.No.2/2024 under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC praying to vacate the interim order granted on 23.04.2024 and the said application is also objected by the plaintiff by filing the objections.

5. The Trial Court having considered the documents which have been placed by the respective parties, formulated the points for consideration regarding cardinal principles of granting temporary injunction. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record answered