IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3634 OF 2024 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.M.RAGHU

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,

RESIDING AT NO.26/1, 1^ST FLOOR,

BENSON TOWN, BENSON ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 046

…APPELLANT

(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. P.MUNIYAPPA

AGED 71 YEARS,

S/O LATE POOJAPPA,

Digitally

2. SRI. UDAY KUMAR. M,

signed by

RAMYA D AGED 40 YEARS,

S/O LATE P MUNIYAPPA,

Location:

HIGH

COURT OF

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.104,

KARNATAKA

SARAIPALYA (VIDYA SAGARA),

THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,

DR SRK NAGAR POST,

BENGALURU – 560 077.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.H, THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2(NOC);

SRI. HARISHA O.K, ADVOCATE FOR R1(NOC))

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.03.02.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7168/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-19), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.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

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 03.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.7168/2022 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19)¹, thereby, the application filed seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction was dismissed.

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

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

4. It is the case of plaintiff that he has become the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered Will executed by his father in the year 1993. The plaintiff’s father had purchased the said suit schedule property in the year 1946. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s father had executed the registered Will in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has become the owner and in continuous possession and in enjoyment over the suit schedule property, but defendant No.1 without having any competency and authority of law had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, who is none other than the son of defendant No.1, but basically, defendant No.1 did not have competency to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 12.12.2018 and General Power of Attorney (for short ‘the GPA’) executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

5. In the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application I.A.No.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to grant an ad-interim exparte temporary injunction restraining defendant No.2 from changing the nature/status and alienating the suit schedule property by creating third party rights, but the said application was dismissed.

6. It is the case of the respondents/defendants and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants argued that the plaintiff had executed agreement of sale, GPA and an affidavit in favour of defendant No.1; therefore, on the basis of these documents, the plaintiff had transferred his right of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 05.05.1997 and sworn affidavit on 04.11.1997. Hence, when defendant No.1 had acquired the right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, subsequently, the sale deed was made in favour of defendant No.2, who is the son of defendant No.1 and since then, defendants are in continuous possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, justified the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the applicatio