IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5045 OF 2024 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

MR. G. SHIVASHANKAR S/O. LATE G. HONNA GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1440, II CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 040.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.N. RAJESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANABASAPPA S.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. SIDDHARUDHA M.J., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. JOGI GOWDA, RESIDENT OF NO. 5, 7^TH CROSS ROAD, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed GNANA JYOTHINAGARA, JNANABHARATHI POST, by RAMYA D BENGALURU-560 056.

Location: HIGH …RESPONDENT COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. B.S. RAGHU PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NOs.1 AND 3 IN O.S.NO. 6168/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45), DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE I.A.NO. 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2024 on I.A.Nos.1 and 3 in O.S.No.6168/2018 passed by the Court of the XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, thereby dismissing I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff and allowing I.A.No.3 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC by the defendant and consequentially, vacating the ad-interim order of temporary injunction granted on

24.08.2018.

2. The appellant-plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Site No.1866 formed in Survey No.3/2 of Gidadhakonenahalli Village, Yeshwantapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.12.2003 executed by the Karnataka State 'D' Group Employees Central Association(for short 'D Group Association') and ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.

3. It is the case of the defendant that he has purchased property bearing assessment No.24/3A, previous assessment No.24/3 in Ward No.129 of BBMP on 20.03.2018. Further, the defendant got the rectification of the sale deed by way of rectification deed dated 28.06.2018 by deleting the words 'D' Group Society' and 'Site No.1866'.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that when the plaintiff started putting up construction on the suit property, the defendant and his men interfered with the construction activities and therefore, he filed the suit in O.S.No.6168/2018 on 23.08.2018, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

5. The trial Court by its order dated 31.05.2024 rejected the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction and allowed the defendant's application and vacated the ad-interim order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff on 24.08.2018.

6. The sale deed of the plaintiff is dated 20.12.2003 but the defendant has purchased the site on 20.03.2018.

Therefore, on these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of NARASINGH VS. K.BASAVARAJ (MANU/KA/7557/2007), and states that when the identity of the property is in dispute, it is appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession and not to put up any construction during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, he prays for an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant not to make interference with the possession of the plaintiff.

7. Learned Counsel for the defendant-respondent by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in MALAR VENI VS. RAMAMURTHY, (LAWS (KAR)-2023-9-50) submitted that when the identity of the property is in dispute and the plaintiff has to prove in which survey number of hi