Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mohammed Shahid Ahmed vs Smt. Nagarathna on 22 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
MFA No. 226 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025
MFA No. 227 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2025 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2025
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2025
IN MFA No.226 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED SHAHID AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED SAYEED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO. 14, A1-FALAH BLOSSOM
RESIDENCY, HENNUR MAIN ROAD
GEDDADAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 043
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
ANJALI M AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 1. SMT. NAGARATHNA
W/O LATE H.S. VENKATESH
MAJOR
R/AT NO.18, K.N.RAMIAH LAYOUT
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036
2. SRI. K.V. NAGENDRA @ DODDA NAGAPPA
S/O SRI. VENKAT RAMAYA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT KRISHNAYANA PALYA
KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
MFA No. 226 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025
MFA No. 227 of 2025
HC-KAR
INDIRANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 038
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.2 IN OS.NO.1781/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CCH-19, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
IN MFA No.95 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED SHAHID AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED SAYEED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO. 14, A1-FALAH BLOSSOM
RESIDENCY, HENNUR MAIN ROAD
GEDDADAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 043
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAGARATHNA
W/O LATE H.S. VENKATESH
MAJOR
R/AT NO.18, K.N.RAMIAH LAYOUT
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
MFA No. 226 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025
MFA No. 227 of 2025
HC-KAR
K.R.PURAM
BANGALORE-560 036
2. SRI. K.V. NAGENDRA @ DODDA NAGAPPA
S/O SRI. VENKAT RAMAYA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT KRISHNAYANA PALYA
KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
INDIRANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 038
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 20.12.2024 PASSED ON
IA NO.3 IN O.S.NO.1781/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-19), ALLOWING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
IN MFA No.227 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED SHAHID AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED SAYEED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO. 14, A1-FALAH BLOSSOM
RESIDENCY, HENNUR MAIN ROAD
GEDDADAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 043
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
MFA No. 226 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025
MFA No. 227 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT. NAGARATHNA
W/O LATE H.S. VENKATESH
MAJOR
R/AT NO.18, K.N.RAMIAH LAYOUT
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036
2. SRI. K.V. NAGENDRA @ DODDA NAGAPPA
S/O SRI. VENKAT RAMAYA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT KRISHNAYANA PALYA
KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
INDIRANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 038
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 20.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.1781/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-19), BENGALURU,
DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1, 2 AND 3 R/W
SEC.151 OF CPC.
THESE MFA's 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
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
MFA No. 226 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025
MFA No. 227 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
These three appeals are filed under Order 43 Rule
1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
`CPC') arise from the common order dated 20th December,
2024 passed by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge (CCH-19), Bengaluru in OS No.1781/2024, whereby
the learned trial Court was pleased to reject IA No.1 filed
by the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC
seeking temporary injunction while simultaneously allowed
I.A Nos. 2 and 3 filed by respondent no.1 thereby,
restrained the appellant from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the property described in the written
statement and from alienating the suit schedule property
pending disposal of the suit.
2. The factual matrix out of which, the present
appeals emanates pertains to a portion of immovable
property described as a vacant residential site bearing PID
No.84-135-380 (as described in the plaint) or PID No.84-
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
65-380 (as per the written statement), situated in
Benniganahalli village, now within the territorial limits of
Sadanandanagar, Bengaluru. The said discrepancy in the
PID no. is not merely a typographical error but, reflects
the core of factual controversy regarding identification,
possession and title over the subject property.
3. The appellant contends that, he is the absolute
and lawful owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of
a registered sale deed dated 11.10.2023 executed by one
K.V.Rmachandra alias Ramachandra who is said to have
acquired the title pursuant to the final decree passed in
FDP No.35/2003 which itself arose out of a partition suit in
OS No.3644/1984. It is further contended that, the said
sale deed was duly followed by mutation of revenue
records as evidenced by the khatha extracts and payment
of property tax up-to-date. These documents according to
the appellant do establish his prima facie ownership and
uninterrupted possession over the suit schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
4. On the contrary, the Respondents No.1 Smt.
Nagarathna disputes the title and possession of the
property. It is her categorical stand that the property in
question was acquired by BDA pursuant to the preliminary
notification dated 8.9.1991 bearing No.LAQ (1) CR 487-
80-81, followed by a final notification in the year 1988
issued under the BDA Act, 1976. As per her version, the
acquired lands were subsequently allotted to the members
of NGEF Employees House Building Society Ltd., of which
her deceased husband was a member by virtue of his
employment with NGEF. The respondent asserts that, she
has been put in lawful possession of the site allotted to her
and continued to remain in uninterrupted possession
thereof paying property taxes and other civic levies.
5. In view of the conflicting claims, the appellant
instituted a suit for permanent injunction seeking to
restrain the defendants therein from interfering with his
alleged possession. In aid of the main relief, he filed I.A.
under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC respondent no.1 in
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
turn, IAs 2 and 3 seeking temporary injunction restraining
the appellant from interfering with his possession and
alienating the property pending adjudication of the main
suit.
6. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties
and after meticulous appreciation of the document and
material proceeded to reject IA. No.1 and allowed IAs 2
and 3 filed by Respondent No.1. The trial Court was
persuaded by the fact that, the appellants vendor had not
established title to the suit schedule property, particularly
in light of the BDA acquisition proceedings. The Court
observed that, although the appellant has placed reliance
upon a reg. sale deed and a final decree, their exists a
cloud over such title due to the acquisition and allotment
made by the BDA to the NGEF employees society, thereby,
negating the presumption of ownership in his favour.
Further, the learned trial Court noted that, the appellant
had not placed any material to rebut the acquisition
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
process or to establish that land stood de-notified or that
the BDA had relinquished its rights.
7. In contrast, the trial Court was of the view that,
Respondent No.1 had established a prima facie case
through cogent material such as tax receipts, membership
records of the society and the documents indicating her
possession. The learned trial Court opined that, the
balance of convenience lay in favour of Respondent No.1
and greater hardship is caused to her if interim protection
is not granted.
8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application
and allowing of respondent's application, the appellant has
approached this Court contending that, the impugned
order is manifestly erroneous, arbitrary and unsustainable
in law. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that, the learned trial Court had failed to consider the
sanctity of the reg. sale deed and he had established
possession which is sufficient for grant of interim
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
protection in a suit for injunction. He would also contend
that, trial Court has erred in undertaking a mini trial at the
interim stage and in rendering findings that prejudice his
claim of title even before evidence is lead.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents supported the reasons assigned by the trial
Court in allowing their applications, and rejecting the
application of the appellant. As the respondents are the
purchasers of the property so described in the written
statement under registered documents and exercising
their rights over the property, rightly the trial Court has
rejected the application filed by the appellant and allowed
the IAs so filed by the respondents.
10. I have perused the entire records so placed on
record, considered the rival submissions advanced by both
the learned counsel and also gave my anxious
consideration to the facts of the case consideration.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
11. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that,
the scope of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r)
circumscribed by the principle that, appellant's
interference with the discretionary orders passed by the
trial Court is limited. it is well settled that, an appellate
court will not lightly interfere with the discretion exercised
by the trial Court unless it is shown to be arbitrary,
capricious vitiated by perversity. The appellate jurisdiction
does not permit substitution of discretion, it merely
corrects abuse thereof.
12. In determining whether a temporary injunction
ought to have been abused or rejected, three-fold tests,
parties seeking injunction must demonstrate i) a prima
facie case, ii) balance of convenience in its favour iii)
irreparable injury that would result in the absence of
injunction. These factors are interrelated and must be
considered holistically.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
13. On the touchstone of the aforementioned tests,
this Court finds no error in the impugned order. The
appellants sale deed though registered does not operate
as conclusive proof of title in a situation where the root of
the title itself is seriously questioned. A sale deed only
conveys such title, right and interest as the vendor
possesses. Nemo dat quod Non Habit - "no one can give
what they do not have", is a legal rule, sometimes called
the nemo dat rule that states that a seller cannot transfer
a better title to a buyer than the seller possess. In simple
terms you cannot give away something you do not own.
If the vendor had no title due to the earlier acquisition of
the land by the State agency, then the appellant cannot
claim any better title than his vendor. Though the
appellant relied upon the final decree proceedings in FDP
No.35/2003, but, it is a misplaced in view of respondents'
assertion that the decree was a collusive compromise and
more significantly and land had vested to State through
acquisition. I also find that, there is no material placed by
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
the appellant to establish that acquisition has lapsed or
was set aside. In absence of such a showing, the
appellant's title is prima facie questionable.
14. On the aspect of possession, this Court is also
mindful that, the plaintiff in a suit for injunction must
establish settled possession. A casual or occasional entry
does not constitute possession in the eyes of law.
Possession (Possessio, quasi, Pedis positio) is twofold,
actual, and in Law: The first is, when a Man actually enters
into Lands or Tenements to him descended; the other,
when Lands or Tenements are descended to a Man, and he
hath not as yet actually entered into them. Possessio pedis
is a Latin term that refers to a foothold or actual
possession of real property, implying either actual
occupancy or enclosure or use.
15. The documents produced by the respondent
prima facie indicate that, she was in settled possession. A
tax paid receipt although not definite proof of title, serve
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
as corroborative evidence of possession especially when
other material like allotment by a registered Society
formed for benefit of employees. The appellant's argument
that, the trial Court had undertaken a premature
adjudication on title is devoid of merit. It is now well
settled that, while Courts do not decide title in interim
matters, they are duty-bound to assess whether a party
seeking injunction has a plausible title or not. "Injunctions
are not granted in aid of doubtful rights" that means,
Courts are hesitant to grant injunctions (court orders to
stop or compel an action) when the legal right being
asserted is unclear or uncertain. While a full trial is needed
to definitively determine the rights of the parties, courts
must undertake a preliminary assessment of the rights to
decide whether an injunction is warranted. This
assessment is limited and focuses on whether the plaintiff
has presented a prima facie case, meaning a case that, if
the evidence were believed, would be sufficient to
establish the right.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
16. So far as balance of convenience is concerned,
it squarely lies in favour of respondent no.1 who stands to
suffer irreparable harm if the appellant is permitted to
interfere or alienate the suit schedule property. It is trite
law that, where equities are evenly balanced, the party in
possession is entitled to protection. No man ought to gain
advantage from his own wrong - aptly applies to the facts
and circumstances of this case since the appellant seeks to
disturb the existing possession based on a doubtful title.
17. In light of the foregoing discussion, I find that
there is no merit in all these appeals. The learned trial
Court has exercised its discretion in a sound and judicious
manner keeping in view the legal principles governing
interim injunctions.
18. The findings are neither perverse nor contrary
to law and therefore, do not warrant interference in
appellate jurisdiction. Resultantly, the following:
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27555
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The M.F.A.Nos.226/2025, 95/2025 and
227/2025 stand dismissed.
(ii) Impugned common order dated
20.12.2024 passed in OS No.1781/2024
by the VII Addl.City Civil and Sessions
Judge (CCH No.19), Bengaluru, is hereby
affirmed.
(iii) The pending IAs if any filed before this
Court, stand disposed of.
The observations made herein are confined to the
adjudication of interlocutory applications and shall not
influence the merits of the case which shall be decided
independently in accordance with law.
Under the circumstances, no orders as to costs.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
