Karnataka High Court
Smt Prabhavathi vs Smt Thippamma on 11 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
MFA No. 1336 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1336 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. PRABHAVATHI
D/O LATE SHRI. P. BALAPPA REDDY
W/O ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/2
BEHIND MAHILA SANGHA
KYALASANAHALLI VILLAGE
KOTHANURU POST
BENGALURU-560 077
2 . SHRI. KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE SHRI. P. BALAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
3 . SHRI. JAYASHANKAR
S/O LATE SHRI. P. BALAPPA REDDY
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ANJALI M
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 4 . SHRI. RAMANJINAPPA
S/O LATE SHRI. P. BALAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4
ARE R/AT NO.154/1
BALAPPA COMPOUND
7TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD
SUBBAIAHNA PALYA EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560 033
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
MFA No. 1336 of 2025
HC-KAR
5 . SMT. NANDAKUMARI
D/O LATE SHRI. P. BALAPPA REDDY
W/O RAJAGOPAL REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO. 2004/2003
VIVEKANANDANAGARA
NEAR J.P. PUBLIC SCHOOL
BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR-563 114
6 . SMT. PUSHPAVATHI
D/O LATE SHRI. P. BALAPPA REDDY
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO. 158, OMBATTHUGULI VILLAGE
KARAMANGALA POST
BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR 563 114
7 . SMT. CHANDRAKALA
D/O LATE SHRI. P. BALAPPA REDDY
W/O SHREERAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.124, BALAPPA COMPOUND
7TH MAIN ROAD, 80 FEET ROAD
SUBBAIAHNA PALYA EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560 033
8 . SHRI. GURURAJ,
S/O. LATE SHRI. P. BALAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
9 . SHRI. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE SHRI. P. BALAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.8 AND 9 ARE
R/AT NO. 154, BALAPPA COMPOUND
7TH MAIN ROAD, 80 FEET ROAD
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
MFA No. 1336 of 2025
HC-KAR
SUBBAIAHNA PALYA EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560 033
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. THIPPAMMA
(DEAD) BY LR
1. SMT. AMITHA REDDY
D/O LATE THIPPAMMA AND
CHIKKAYELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.88, RAMASWAMYPALYA
BANASWADI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 033
2. SMT. PARVATHI
D/O LATE SHRI. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
3. SHRI. PRAKASH
S/O LATE SHRI. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
4. SHRI. KANNA
D/O LATE SHRI. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
5. SHRI. CHANDRU
S/O LATE SHRI. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
6. SHRI. VASU
S/O LATE SHRI. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
MFA No. 1336 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. SMT. SARASWATHI
D/O LATE SHRI NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 7 ARE
R/AT CHIKKANABASAWADI
BANASAWADI POST
BENGALURU-560 033
8. SMT. HEMALATHA
W/O LATE S. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
9. SMT. R. SHALINI
D/O LATE S. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
10 . SHRI. R. SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE S. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
11 . SHRI. R. RAJALAKSHMI
D/O LATE S. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 11 ARE
R/AT NO.1/81, SIDDARAMAPPA GARDEN
LINGARAJAPURAM
BENGALURU-560 084
12 . SHRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY
S/O LATE SHRI. N.A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.90, DODDANEKUNDI
VILLAGE AND POST
BENGALURU-560 037
13 . SHRI. RAJAREDDY
S/O SHRI. PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
MFA No. 1336 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/AT NO. 71/1, 3RD MAIN
SRI. CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT
MARATHAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 037
14 . SHRI. VENKATESH B
S/O LATE SHRI. BUDDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.317, CHIKKABANASWADI
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU -560 043
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHINMAY KURUNDWAD , ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R12,
R13 & R15;
SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R11 )
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A. IN
R.A.NO.98/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER
XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
MFA No. 1336 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This Court is seized of a Miscellaneous First Appeal
filed under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC") which
has been instituted by the appellants being aggrieved by
the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the
Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, in Regular Appeal No. 98/2020,
whereby the application filed by the appellants under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the
CPC, seeking a temporary injunction against respondents
Nos. 9 and 10, restraining them from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property, came to be rejected.
2. The appellants have now approached this Court
contending that, the said order is vitiated by serious errors
of law and fact and that it disregards the overwhelming
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
material placed before the Court establishing their prima
facie title, continuous and undisturbed possession over the
suit schedule property for several decades, and the threat
of irreparable harm caused by the acts of the contesting
respondents, who have sought to interfere with such
possession by claiming through a line of title demonstrably
lacking in substance and legally untenable.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits
that, the appeal is filed by appellants in R.A.98/2020. The
suit was filed for relief of partition and against the
judgment and decree in R.A.No.98/2020 is filed and this
impugned order arises on the application filed by the
appellants. He would submit that, title of the appellants
itself is disputed and now it is seized in the aforesaid
regular appeal. During the pendency of the appeal itself
there was a purchase of the property by respondent
No.15. He would submit that, the learned trial Court has
committed a grave error in dismissing the interim
application. In support of his submission, he took this
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
Court to various additional documents produced in this
appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that, rights of the appellants kept open as they are legatee
or class - 1 heirs. As the Will itself disputed, the
purchaser of property has no better title than the family
member. He submits that, till today Balappa Reddy has
not lost case on merits though there are several
proceedings.
4. As against this submission, the learned counsel
for the respondents justifies the dismissal of interim
application and submits that, the impugned order is a well
reasoned order and cannot be interfered with. He too
relies upon the additional documents produced and
submits that, there is no merit in this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants as well
as respondents have produced various documents in
support of their submissions, and they have also furnished
the synopsis showing the calendar of events that have
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
taken place with regard to suit schedule properties right
from 1982. The counsel for the appellants has produced
certain documents along with the I.A. such as photographs
showing the work being undertaken on the scheduled
property. I have scrupulously perused all the materials
placed on record. Though the interim application is filed in
the shape of I.A.No.1/2025 seeking temporary injunction,
as the appeal itself is heard on its merits, therefore,
I.A.No.1/2025 is also heard along with the main appeal.
6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of
the records, the origin of the dispute trace back to the
year 1952, as per the calendar of events furnished by both
the counsels, i.e., when one Peddana @ Maniswami, the
patriarch of the family, acquired by way of a registered
Sale Deed, the suit schedule property, being land
measuring 8 acres and 18 guntas situated in Survey No.
12 (New Survey No. 85), in Kyalasanahalli Village,
Bengaluru South Taluk, then forming part of
Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru South. This land
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
holding, which formed part of his self-acquired properties,
was subsequently the subject of the family arrangement
formalized through a 'Panchayath Palupatti' executed on
16.01.1958 during his lifetime, wherein the said
Peddanna, having 2 sons - Sri Narayanappa and Sri
Balappa Reddy- effected an intra-family division. The
property was apportioned in halves, with the southern 4
acres and 9 guntas being allotted to Narayanappa and the
northern 4 acres and 9 guntas to Balappa Reddy. This
division was respected, acted upon and admitted by all
concerned, as evidenced by multiple instances, including
Government acquisition proceedings in the year 1972 - 73,
wherein Narayanappa independently received
compensation for lands acquired from his share in relying
upon the 1958 Palupatti.
7. In a significant development in 1973, Balappa
Reddy executed a registered release-cum-partition dead
relinquishing his rights over various family properties in
favour of his father, Peddana, possibly as part of a broader
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
settlement. Thereafter, on 11.07.1974, Peddana executed
a registered Will whereby he bequeathed certain
properties, including the entire northern portion of the suit
schedule property (measuring 4 acres 9 guntas) to
Balappa Reddy alone, explicitly excluding Narayanappa
and his legal heirs from any claim thereto. This
testamentary dispossession, supported by clear intention
and solemn affirmation, was registered and validly
executed.
8. Following the death of Peddana in the year
1978, Balappa Reddy stepped into peaceful possession and
began cultivating the land allotted to him, exercising acts
of ownership and possession that were neither challenged
nor interfered with until 1981. It is alleged that,
Narayanappa, despite having alienated his own share to a
third party, (one Sri Raghu) in 1981, sought to disrupt the
possession of Balappa Reddy.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
9. The events that ensued included a series of
litigations spanning decades, reflecting both the
determination of the appellants to assert their legitimate
rights, and the persistent attempts by the legal heirs of
Narayanappa to cast doubt upon that claim. In 1988,
Balappa Reddy initiated O.S.No.590/1988 against
Narayanappa for declaration and injunction, seeking to
reaffirm his title and possession over the suit schedule
property. During the proceedings therein, Narayanappa
admitted in unequivocal terms, that the property had
indeed been partitioned by their father and that the
Balappa Reddy was in possession and cultivation of the
northern half. Despite this admission, Narayanappa filed
O.S.No. 117/1993 seeking an injunction against Balappa
Reddy, which was rejected on the ground that, he failed to
establish even a prima facie case. The appeal in
M.A.No.149/1993 met with a similar fate, with the learned
Appellate Court explicitly holding that, the possession of
Narayanappa was in serious doubt, and that there existed
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
no documentary basis for granting any relief. The
consistent trend in the judicial record shows that, the
Court informally recognized Balappa Reddy's possession
and denied equitable relief to Narayanappa.
10. The records further reveal that, meanwhile in
the year 2004, Smt. Thippamma, sister of Balappa Reddy
and Narayanappa, filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.
1168/2004 against both her brothers, including the suit
schedule property in her claim. In the said suit, a status
quo order was granted in the year 2005 in favour of
Balappa Reddy and the same continued in force for a
period of 14 years until the suit was dismissed on
25.10.2019. The records also indicate that, during the
pendency of the proceedings in R.F.A.No.509/2000 and
R.P.No. 39/2005, the legal heirs of Narayanappa executed
Sale Deed dated 24.11.2004 in favour of respondents Nos.
9 and 10 alienating the very portion of the land
bequeathed to Balappa Reddy over which they had no
subsisting right, title or possession. The sales were made
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
without disclosure to the appellants and during pending
litigation, raising questions about their bona fides.
11. The records further reveal that, despite this,
respondent Nos. 9 and 10, claiming under these disputed
transactions, sought to assert possession and made
attempts to demolish a tomb constructed in memory of
Smt. Gurramma, wife of Balappa Reddy, who had been
buried on the suit schedule property in the year 2007.
This provoked the appellants to seek relief in the form of
temporary injunction, first before the trial Court and now
before this Court. The interim application filed in
R.A.No.98/2020 seeking to restrain respondents Nos. 9
and 10 from interfering with possession was unfortunately
rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge on 19.12.2024, holding that, the appellants failed to
make out a prima facie case, that no house or tomb was
visible in the photographs, and that no documents had
been produced showing possession.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
12. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court is
unable to accept the reasoning of the learned District
Judge. The finding that the appellants failed to establish a
prima facie case ignores the extensive documentary
report, the admissions of Narayanappa, the consistency in
earlier orders granting injunction in favour of Balappa
Reddy, and the fact that every time possession was
reciprocated, it was found to lay with the appellants or
their predecessors. Moreover, the photographs relied
upon by the learned Judge are only one set, whereas the
appellants had furnished photographs both prior and
subsequent to demolition-depicting the tomb, house and
Nilgiri trees in question - of which the former appeared not
to have been considered.
13. The learned trial Court also overlooked crucial
documents such as electricity bills, revenue entries in the
name of Balappa Reddy, mutation records and even an
earlier order of this Court in W.P.No. 9146/2016 whereby
revenue entries were manipulated in favour of respondent
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
Nos. 9 and 10, were quashed and the matter was
remanded. All this material, which substantiates the
appellant's continuous possession, was summarily
disregarded by the trial Court.
14. When the appellants are seeking the equitable
relief from the equitable jurisdictional Court under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, it mandates the Court to
preserve possession where a strong prima facie case is
made out, the balance of convenience favours the
applicants, and there exists a risk of irreparable harm.
This Court finds that the appellants have successfully
established their claim under all three heads. The
registered Will of 1974, the constitutional judicial findings
of possession, the absence of any adverse order
establishing respondent Nos. 9 and 10's title, the
admissions of Narayanappa, the prior injunctions in favour
of the appellants, the continuing entries in revenue and
mutation records, and the timing and conduct of alleged
alienation - together build a compelling prima facie case.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
15. The balance of convenience clearly lies with the
appellants, whose possession stands threatened by third-
party purchasers without clear title, who claim under
individuals who had themselves divested their rights
decades ago. The threatened destruction of the tomb of a
family member, the illegal disconnection of electricity,
which is now the subject of contempt proceedings, and the
unilateral attempt by respondents Nos.9 and 10 to alter
possession amidst, pending litigation all justify injunctive
relief. The law supported by the appellants in the absence
of protection - namely the destruction of a grave,
destruction of family property, and disruption of
possession that cannot be compensated by monetary
means. Accordingly, this Court finds the order of the
learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Rural District, Bengaluru, to be legally unsustainable and
factually flawed.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
16. Resultantly, pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated
19.12.2024 passed in
R.A.No.98/2020 by I Additional
District and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru,
is set aside and the application for
injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 of CPC is allowed.
(iii) The respondents, particularly
respondent Nos. 9 and 10, be
restrained from interfering in any
manner with the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property by the appellants, or from
damaging, defiling or removing any
structure, including the tomb of Smt.
Gurramma, till the final disposal of
R.A.No. 98/2020.
(iv) In view of the facts brought on
record by both the parties, the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30849
HC-KAR
learned First Appellate Court is
requested to dispose of
R.A.No.98/2020 expeditiously with all
its promptitude.
(v) All pending applications are disposed
of.
No orders as to cost.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
AM
