SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21225

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K S HEMALEKHA
SRI PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
SMT RANI VIJAYAKUMAR – Respondent
MFA 6264/2022



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17216 MFA No. 6264 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH 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:

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17216 MFA No. 6264 of 2022

HC-KAR

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

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17216 MFA No. 6264 of 2022

HC-KAR

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

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17216 MFA No. 6264 of 2022

HC-KAR

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

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top