An appellate court must intervene in a discretionary grant of temporary injunction where the trial court fails to account for prior judicial findings, ignoring evidence of disputed title and failing to establish a clear prima facie case of possession.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2025 PASSED ON I.A.Nos.2 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.4783/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.3), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO. 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 6 in OS No. 4783/2025 calling in question the correctness of the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘the trial Court’ for short) on I.A Nos. 2 and 3 whereby the trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellants/defendants 1 to 6 from interfering with the alleged possession of the plaintiffs and from creating third party interest over the suit schedule property.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal is that land bearing Sy. No. 10 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situated at Pattangare Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, is the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs claim title to the said property through a grant said to have been made in favour of one Muniyappa in the year 1958, followed by the mutation of revenue records,

conversion of land for non-agricultural purpose in the year 1995, restoration of proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2010 and ultimately through a registered sale deed executed in their favour in the year 2023. The defendants on the other hand assert a claim of title through a different lineage, tracing their rights to an earlier grant in favour of Sanjeevaiah and subsequent transactions including a sale deed executed in the year 1992 and conversion proceeding. The schedule property had been subject matter of several rounds of litigation. One such suit in OS No. 2878/2022 was instituted by Puttama, who is the present vendor of the plaintiffs seeking an order of injunction.

3. The trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, rejected the application for temporary injunction by order dated 20.08.2022. The appeal preferred against the said order in MFA No. 6104/2022 came to be withdrawn. Another suit in OS No. 3494/2022 was filed by Srinivas Rao, claiming through Sanjeevaiah

lineage wherein the trial Court again refused to grant temporary injunction. The said order was carried in appeal before this Court in MFA No. 6593/2022, which also came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the finding that no prima facie case of possession was made out. The Special Leave Petition in SLP 9195/2024 filed by Srinivas Rao was withdrawn. Yet another suit in OS No. 3124/2022 filed by the defendants similarly resulted in refusal of injunction.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the plaintiffs in the present suit derived their title through their vendor, who had earlier approached the trial Court in OS No. 2878/2022 seeking identical relief of injunction in respect of the very same property. It is submitted that in the said proceedings, the trial Court, upon consideration of the material placed on record had rejected the application for temporary injunction holding that, the plaintiffs therein have failed to establish possession. The said findings, according to the appellants, directly impacts the present

plaintiffs as they claim through the very same vendor, and therefor