IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2026 (CPC-)

BETWEEN:

SMT. DHAKSHAYANI. C D/O SRI CHANDRASHEKAR B, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.12/1, 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, CHAMRAJPETE, BENGALURU-560 018.

Digitally signed by …APPELLANT MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. H MANJUNATH.,ADVOCATE)

KARNATAKA AND:

1. SRI. MITHILESH. L. N.

S/O SRI LAKSHMI NARAYAN N AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.212, 1^ST MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPETE, BENGALURU - 560 018.

2. SRI ARAVIND FELIX DSILVA, S/O SRI FRANCIS D SILVA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.1351, NEAR VINAYAKA, VIDYANIKETHAN SCHOOL, INDIRANAGAR, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

…RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 05.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 2/2024 IN O.S.NO.1116/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-5, PARTLY ALLOWING THE IA.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2024 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the appellant-defendant No.1 assailing the order dated 05.04.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1116/2024 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5) (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the applications-I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction came to be allowed and both parties were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property until disposal of the suit.

Brief facts

2. The plaintiff instituted suit in O.S.No.1116/2024 seeking declaration that the gift deed dated 20.07.2023 between defendant Nos.1 and 2 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, declaration that the agreement of sale dated 20.07.2023 between defendant Nos.1 and 2 is not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and from alienating or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit schedule properties.

3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and from alienating the property during pendency of the suit.

4. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff and also raised a counter claim, contending that the property claimed by them forms part of Survey No.66/1, whereas, the property claimed by the plaintiff is stated to be survey No.67 and sought injunction against the plaintiff in respect of the counter claim schedule property.

5. The trial Court by the impugned order, after considering the pleadings, and material on record, partly allowed the applications and directed the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-defendant No.1 has preferred this petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the vendor of the plaintiff, namely M.D.Ramakrishnaiah had earlier filed O.S.No.6534/2011 challenging the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.5442/2009, which came to be dismissed. In view of the said proceedings, the plaintiff cannot now indirectly question the compromise decree or the subsequent transaction. The plaintiff has failed to establish the prima-facie possession over the suit schedule property and that the properties claimed by the plaintiff and defendants are distinct and situated in dif