IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7023 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. VIJAYA KUMARI W/O LATE UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.117, ARALIMARADA RASTHE NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, NAYANDAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 039.

2. SMT. RAKSHITHA D/O LATE UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.117, ARALIMARADA RASTHE NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, NAYANDAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 039.

3. SRI. CHETHNA Digitally S/O LATE UMASHANKAR signed by AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS PAVITHRA B Location: R/AT NO.117, ARALIMARADA RASTHE HIGH NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, NAYANDAHALLI COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 039.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MUNIRAJA M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA H S/O HANUMAN PRASAD AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.118, ARALIMARADA RASTHE JANATHA COLONY MAIN ROAD OPP. SOLLAPURADAMMA TEMPLE BENGALURU SOUTH, NAYANDAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 039.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMARA V, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 2 AND 4 IN O.S. NO. 3482/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.7), ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND DISMISSING THE I.A.NO. 4 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by appellants/defendant Nos.1 to

3 questioning the order passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.No.3482/2024 dated 31.07.2025, whereby the trial Court had granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants/ appellants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2. The suit is filed for permanent injunction stating that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant is putting up construction abutting to the suit schedule property which is causing damage.

Therefore, filed the suit for permanent injunction.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the defendants are the owners of site No.116, Khaneshmari No.43 and the plaintiff is the owner of site No.116 Panchayath Khata No.44, which are adjacent to each other. He submitted that the trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them to putting up any construction causing damage to the house of the plaintiff. Learned counsel further submitted that originally the site No.116 was larger extent and it was divided between Thimma and Maddurappa as per partition deed dated 08.03.1956. 4. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that the partition is in respect of site No.115 but not in respect of site No.116. But, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that in the said partition deed, the site number is wrongly shown as 115 but it ought to have been 116 and it was corrected in the same deed in subsequent page by mentioning site number as 116. It is submitted that Thimma has sold 1/2 share portion to one Bayamma who is the wife of Maddurappa through registered sale deed dated 02.09.1964 and thereafter, necessary revenue entries made in favour of the Bayamma by mentioning dimensional property as 24 x 29 as per the sale deed. Therefore, after selling the property to Bayamma, Maddurappa had become owner of the site to the extent of 36 x 29. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that now the defendants are putting up construction over the site of dimension 36 x 24 because remaining 5 feet as per the contentions of the defendants that said 5 feet is with the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants have started construction of the house having dimension of 36 x 24 abutting to the plaintiff's house. It is the counter arguments by the respondent/plaint