THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.I IN O.S.NO.1598/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.3), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 30/04/2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2026 passed on I.A No. I in OS No. 1598/2026 on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.3) (‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed and the defendants have been restrained by way of temporary injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties pending disposal of the suit.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court, instituted a suit for bare injunction contending that they are the absolute owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties by virtue of registered sale deed executed in the year 2016, derived through Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society (‘the Society’ for short). It is the case of the plaintiffs that ever since from the date of purchase they have been in peaceful possession of the properties. It is further stated that on 16.11.2022, defendant No. 1 along with others interfered with their possession, obstructed construction activities and threatened them. According to the plaintiffs, though a complaint was lodged, the police treated the matter as civil in nature. It is stated that the defendants had earlier instituted suit in OS No. 7417/2022 seeking injunction against the plaintiffs which came to be rejected and attained finality. It is further stated that subsequent to the failure in earlier proceedings, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 attempted to create third party rights by executing gift deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4, during the pendency of the litigation and once again attempted to interfere with their possession and the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction along with the suit.

3. Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the foundational defect in the plaintiffs claim of title and possession. It is contended that the entire claim of the plaintiffs is traced through the Society, whose alleged acquisition itself has failed in law. It is submitted though a preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) was issued, no final notification was ever issued and the acquisition proceedings did not culminate in vesting of land. In this regard, it is pointed out that in W.P.No. 18584/1989 filed by the Society seeking completion of acquisition, the relief sought was rejected. Further, W.A.No. 8766/1996 was also dismissed, and ultimately, the Society itself sought refund of the amount deposited which came to be ordered. Thus, the Society has no vested right to form layouts or convey sites. It is further contended that the Society itself had instituted OS No. 777/2007 against the vendor of the defendants seeking injunction, and the said suit was dismissed, thereby negating the claim of the Society over the very property. It is therefore submitted that once the Society's claim has been rejected in earlier proceedings, the plaintiffs, claiming through such Society, cannot assert any better title.

3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the appellants derived title through H Lankappa, who had valid title, and who executed registered sale deed dated 02.06.2022 in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, followed by subsequent transactions. It i