Karnataka High Court

Sri Chowdappa vs Sri M S Narayanappa on 11 July, 2025

                                             -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:25508
                                                        MFA No. 4279 of 2015


                 HC-KAR



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                         BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4279 OF 2015 (CPC)
                 BETWEEN:

                 SRI. CHOWDAPPA
                 SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

                 1(A). SRI. C. VENKATESH
                       S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
                       @ DODDACHOWDAPPA
                       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

                    1(B) SMT. PARVATHAMMA
                         D/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
                         @ DODDACHOWDAPPA
                         W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                         R/AT ARADESHANAHALLI VILLAGE
                         KUNDANA HOBLI
                         DEVANAHALLI TALUK
Digitally signed by
                         BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
ANJALI M
Location: High   1(C). SRI. C. NARAYANASWAMY
Court of
Karnataka              S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
                       @ DODDACHOWDAPPA
                       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

                 1(D) SRI. C. MUNIRAJU
                      S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
                      @ DODDACHOWDAPPA
                      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

                      APPELLANTS NO.1(A), 1(C) AND 1(D) ARE
                      RESIDING AT BETTAKOTE VILLAGE
                      CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
                            -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:25508
                                  MFA No. 4279 of 2015


HC-KAR




       DEVANAHALLI TALUK
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
                                       ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. M.S. NARAYANAPPA
       S/O LATE MARISIDDAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

2.     SRI. B.M. MUNIVEERANNA
       S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

3.     SMT. SUVARNAMMA
       W/O LATE KEMPANNA B.M
       AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

4.     SRI. NAGARAJU
       S/O LATE KEMPANNA B.M
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

5.     SRI. JAGADISHA
       S/O LATE KEMPANNA B.M
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

       ALL ARE RESIDING AT
       BETTAKOTE VILLAGE
       CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
       DEVANAHALLI TALUK
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(VIDE ORDER DTD.20.07.2015 NOTICE TO R3
 TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH;
 VIDE ORDER DTD.14.10.2024 APPEAL AGAINST R1 IS
 ABATED;
 SRI. G.S. PATEEL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                             -3-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:25508
                                      MFA No. 4279 of 2015


HC-KAR



     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.17.04.2015 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN
O.S. NO.24/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING I.A. NO.1 FILED U/O 39
RULE 1 & 2 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

                     CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

This Misc.First appeal is instituted under order 43

Rule 1(r) of CPC, 1908 arising out of impugned order

dated 17th April 2015 passed by the learned Sr.Civil Judge

and JMFC, Devenahalli in OS No.24/2015, whereby, the

learned trial Judge declined to grant temporary injunction

sought by the appellant (plaintiff in the suit) under Order

39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Being aggrieved by such a refusal,

the appellant has approached this Court praying inter alia

for reversal of the impugned order and for grant of an

interim order of status quo in respect of immovable

property forming the subject matter of the litigation.

NC: 2025:KHC:25508

HC-KAR

2. The facts as narrated and urged by the learned

counsel for the appellant reveal a long chain of devolution

of title pertaining the land bearing Sy.No.93 (New

no.93/2) measuring 1 acre 14 guntas situated at Hosahalli

village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devenahalli Tq. Bengaluru

Rural Dist. The appellant specifically asserts that, the

schedule properties originally belonged to Krishnoji Kande

Rao and the same was lawfully acquired by appellant's

grand father by way of registered sale deed dated

11.04.1947. This was followed by a partition deed dated

06.09.1954 wherein, the suit property was allotted to the

appellants' father. The appellant as a legal heir and

successor, claims continuous possession and ownership

flowing from these uncontested documents.

3. The controversy begins with the appellant's

assertion that, his father had alienated land bearing

Sy.No.92 measuring 2 acres to one Sri Venkatashamappa

through a registered sale deed dated 12.04.1965. It is the

appellant's case that, the said document was later

NC: 2025:KHC:25508

HC-KAR

interpolated to mention Sy.No.93 in place of Sy.No.92.,

thereby, misrepresenting the property that was conveyed.

Building upon this alleged act of manipulation, it is

asserted by the plaintiff that, the present first respondent

who derived title under the sale deed from

Venkatashamappa fraudulently executed an exchange

deed dated 24.01.1983 in favour of second respondent

even though he had no legitimate title over the suit

schedule property. Based on the exchange deed, revenue

entries were mutated in the name of second respondent.

4. The appellant specifically contends that this

entire chain of transaction thus beginning from erroneous

sale, interpolation, exchange and mutation is tainted with

fraud and collusion and that the respondents have

fabricated the cases of their title by relying on forged

interpolated and misleading documents. Upon coming to

know of these developments including a collusive partition

decree passed in OS No.599/2014 in favour of the second

respondent son, (to which the appellant was not a party)

NC: 2025:KHC:25508

HC-KAR

the appellant filed OS NO.24/2015 seeking the relief of

declaration, cancellation of the said decree and other

consequential reliefs.

5. In the suit, the appellant also filed IA No.1

seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents

from altering the nature and character of the property,

alienating or encumbering or interfering with peaceful

possession of the property. The trial Court, however by

passing the impugned order dismissed the said

application. The trial Court reasoned that, the appellant

had failed to make out a prima facie case, had not

approached the Court with clean hands and balance of

convenience favoured the respondents. This is how now

the appellant is before this Court challenging the

impugned order.

6. Having heard the arguments of both the side

and having examined the impugned order in juxtaposition

with the pleadings, documents and arguments advanced

NC: 2025:KHC:25508

HC-KAR

before this Court, it is evident that the order under

challenge suffers from both legal infirmity and factual

misrepresentation for the following reasons:

Firstly, this Court notes that, the appellant has

placed on record foundational documents such as

the 1947 registered sale deed which was followed

by 1954 partition deed. These transactions are old,

registered and not impeached by any authority or

litigation so far till this day. The flow of title from

original owner to the appellant is thus, not merely a

matter of assertion but, is backed by credible

documentary evidence.

Secondly, the core allegation against the

respondents revolves around the interpolation under

the sale deed of 1965 and illegitimate exchange

deed executed in the year 1983. These are all

serious allegations involving questions of forgery,

fraud, misrepresentation and collusion- all of which

necessarily require a full-fledged trial for

NC: 2025:KHC:25508

HC-KAR

determination. It is well settled that, Courts cannot

summarily reject claims involving disputed facts at

the interlocutory stage especially where ownership

of property is in question.

Thirdly, the respondents reliance on revenue

records mutated in their favour cannot be held

conclusive or determinative of title. The Hon'ble

Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments

have repeatedly held that, revenue entries are fiscal

documents meant for taxation purposes and cannot

override title derived through lawful instruments. In

Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P., reported in 2021

SCC OnLine SC 802 it is held that, it is a settled

Position of Law that, mutation entry does not confer

any right, title or interest in favour of the person

and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only

for the fiscal purpose. If there is any dispute with

respect to the title and more particularly when the

mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of

NC: 2025:KHC:25508

HC-KAR

the Will, the party who is claiming title/right on the

basis of Will has to approach the appropriate Civil

Court and get his rights crystalized and only

thereafter on the basis of the decision before the

Civil Court necessary mutation entry can be made.

In this context, the trial Court's observation that the

appellant failed to challenge mutation.

Fourthly, the learned trial Court appears to

have prematurely reached to a conclusion that,

plaintiff is not entitled to relief due to alleged

suppression of facts. However, such findings require

evidence and cannot be assumed at the threshold.

The assertion that, the suit is speculative is contrary

to the record, which clearly shows that, the

appellant has acted with reasonable diligence after

discovery of alleged fraud.

7. The law governing the grant of interlocutory

relief is well settled. The Court must examine:-

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25508

HC-KAR

(i) whether the plaintiff has prima facie case?

(ii) whether the balance of convenience lies in his

favour? and

iii) whether irreparable injury would result if

interim relief is denied?.

All three conditions are manifestly satisfied by the

plaintiff in the present case. The appellant has

demonstrated a serious and arguable case based on lawful

ownership documents. The balance of convenience lies in

preventing further alienation or mutation in favour of third

parties. The property in question being immovable

property and susceptible to permanent legal injury, any

transfer or development would render suit infructuous and

prejudice the outcome of the litigation. The learned trial

Court ought to have seen that, status quo is not a grant of

final relief but, merely a protective mechanism to preserve

the subject matter of suit pending adjudication. The Courts

are duty bound to preserve lis pendens property

particularly where there are grave allegations of title

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25508

HC-KAR

fraud, so that, no irreversible damage is done to either

parties interest during the pendency of the trial. It is also

worth reiterating that, status quo tilts the scale in favour

of either side, it only maintains equilibrium until the Court

has had an opportunity to determine the true facts. The

denial of such a protection risks allowing allegedly

fraudulent transactions to mature into further third party

rights defeating the very purpose of pending suit.

8. Having regard to the foregoing analysis of this

case and with view to secure the ends of justice and

prevent miscarriage thereof, this Court finds it appropriate

to interfere with the impugned order and to protect the

subject matter of dispute until the completion of trial.

9. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellant

deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the following:

- 12 -

                                                NC: 2025:KHC:25508



HC-KAR




                             ORDER

     (i)    The appeal is allowed.

(ii) Order dated 17.04.2015 passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli, in I.A.1 in OS No.24/2015 rejecting the IA No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is hereby set aside.

(iii) The parties are directed to maintain status quo as on the date of this judgment in respect of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.93 New No.93/2, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas situated at Channarayapatana Hobli, Devenahalli, Bengalurur Rural Dist.

(iv) The learned trial Court is requested to proceed in OS No.24/2015 on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously with all its promptitude.

(v) It is made clear that, any of the observations made in this judgment is purely for the purpose of deciding this appeal and shall not influence the trial