IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1245 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. KUMAR.R S/O LATE RAGHU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37/2, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, NEW POTTERY TOWN, WILLIAMS TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 084.

2. SRI. N.YELLAPPA, S/O LATE K NANJAPPA, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23, 3^RD CROSS, VST ROAD, LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 084.

Digitally …APPELLANTS signed by PAVITHRA B (BY SRI. K.S. NARESH SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

1. SRI KARUKAIHARA KRISHNAN PANIKAR ARVINDAKSHAN, S/O MR. KARUKAIHARA KRISHNA PANIKAR, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARUKATHARA HARISUMAN, PANDALAM, KIURAMPALA, PANDALAM POST, KERALA 689 501, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI ANIL KUMAR.

2. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, SHIVAJINAGAR, (BANASWADI), NO.740/2, 1^ST FLOOR, CLASSIC MOTORS BUILDING, 9^TH B MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 013.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.B.N.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.04.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.278/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.278/2024 challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.278/2024 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru¹, thereby the application filed for seeking to grant an order temporary injunction was allowed.

3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

4. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare that he is owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction on the facts pleading that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule site through a registered sale deed dated 31.01.1995. It is not disputed that originally the owners were Doddavenkatappa and Chikkavenkatappa of the lands bearing Sy.No.17 and new Sy.No.17/2 situated at Byrathi Village, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru. The plaintiff is claiming to be the purchaser of the suit schedule site through registered sale hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short deed dated 31.01.1995 from Bandiamma. Whereas defendant No.1’s sale deed is dated 31.03.2023; therefore, the sale deed of the plaintiff has precedence over the period of defendant No.1. Thus, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

5. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that they are purchasers through the children of Vallappa. Both Vallappa and Bandiamma are the husband and wife. Bandiamma did not have suit rights over the suit schedule land. The defendants have claiming their title through children of Vallappa and Bandiamma and after purchasing the lands, the defendants have got converted the lands and obtained an order of conversion from the Deputy Commissioner (for short ‘the DC’) on 31.03.2023 and sites were formed. Accordingly, defendant No.1 had purchased the suit schedule site.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that though the defendants had obtained an order of conversion from the DC, but that is challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the KAT’) and is pending and moreover, the layout plan was not got approved by the competent authority. Hence, there is no question of purchase of suit schedule site by