IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6264 OF 2022 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI PRAKASH S/O LATE SAMBASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.B-90, SAMEERAPURA, GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE-560004.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI S. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. RANI VIJAYAKUMAR W/O VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OPP. POLICE STATION, KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA, Digitally signed by GAVIPURAM CIRCLE, MAHALAKSHMI B M GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI, Location: HIGH COURT OF BENGALURU-560004.

KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION

151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.07.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.5945/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH.NO.28 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the defendant No. 1 assailing the order dated 21.07.2022 on I.A. Nos. I and II in OS No. 5945/2021, on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore, CCH 28, (‘trial Court’ for short), whereby the application I.A.No. I filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit was allowed and I.A No. II filed by the defendants/appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to vacate the order of ad-interim temporary injunction was modified.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit in OS No. 5945/2021 seeking relief for permanent injunction contending that she is the absolute owner in lawful possession of the suit schedule property bearing site No. 23, having acquired the title under a registered sale deed dated 12.09.2019 and that the katha stands in her name and the taxes are paid. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants attempted to interfere with her possession on 30.10.2021, thereby necessitating the filing of the suit along with the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

3. The appellant/defendant appeared, contested the claim by asserting ownership and possession over a property namely site No. 24 (renumbered as site No. 620) alleging allotment by the BDA and supported by a registered sale deed and possession certificate. It is specifically contended that the suit property claimed by the plaintiff is not identifiable and the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or possession over the property claimed by the defendant. The defendants also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacating of the interim order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is perverse and contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of temporary injunction. It is urged that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case or possession over the suit schedule property and the documents produced and relied upon do not correspond to the property described in the plaint, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the identity of the property. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant is in actual possession of site No. 24 (renumbered as site 620) and the plaintiff has not established the existence or lawful derivation of the site No. 23 in view of the acquisition proceedings. It is contended that when there exists a serious dispute regarding the identity and title over the property, an order of injunction ought not to have been granted and the trial Court has misapplied the principles governing Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 thereby warranting interference.

5. This Court has carefully considered the contentions and perused the material on record.

6. The trial Court upon consideration of the ple