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 filed challenging the order dated 17.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.1777/2024 on the file of XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-40) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking temporary injunction came to be rejected.

Brief Facts:

2. The case of the plaintiff is that, he purchased schedule ‘A’ and schedule ‘B’ properties bearing Site Nos.34 and 35 situated at Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, under a registered sale deeds dated 01.02.2023 executed by GPA holders of Smt. Nirmala John. It is stated that the plaintiff traces title to the property through the original owner P.I. Joseph, thereafter through Thangamma Joseph, who inturn executed a Will dated 01.03.1993 in favour of Smt. Nirmala John. It is submitted that the BBMP kathas have been transferred in his name and that sanctioned building plans and licences have also been obtained from BBMP for putting up construction over the suit schedule properties. It is stated that, when the plaintiff started preparation for construction, the defendant interfered with his peaceful possession, thereby constraining him to file suit O.S.No.1777/2024 seeking permanent injunction. Along with the suit, filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction.

3. The defendant contested the application. It is stated that the plaintiff has no title or possession over the suit schedule properties and the entire claim is founded on fabricated and concocted documents. It is stated that the defendant had already obtained a decree of permanent injunction in O.S.No.4508/2018 against the vendors of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff, claiming through such vendors, cannot seek injunction against the defendant. According to the defendant, the properties claimed by the plaintiff actually pertain to Site carved out of Survey No.290/2 and not Survey No.58 and the plaintiff is attempting to overlap and correlate different survey numbers and properties in order to knock off the defendant's property. It is stated that several litigations concerning nearby sites in Survey No.58 and Survey No.290/2 are pending and that injunction applications filed by similarly placed persons have already been rejected.

4. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and documents, held that serious disputes exist regarding the identity and location of the properties claimed by the parties. The Trial Court observed that the defendant had already secured a decree of permanent injunction in O.S.No.4508/2018, against the vendors of the plaintiff and the said decree has attained finality. The Trial Court further observed that the appellant’s vendors themselves were restrained from interfering with the defendant's possession and therefore, the plaintiff, claiming through such vendors, failed to establish a prima facie case. The Trial Court also held that the issue involves disputed questions relating to title, possession and survey identity, which require adjudication in a full-fledged trial and that at the interlocutory stage, the plaintiff has failed to establish the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Accordingly, the Trial Court rejected I.A.No.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

5. Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Thilak Raj S.V., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court committed a serious error in mechanically relying upon the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4508/2018 and the order passed in RFA proceedings, without properly examining the documents produced by the appellant. It is contended that the appellant has produced the registered sale deeds, katha certificates, sanctioned