Karnataka High Court
Sri Revanna vs Dr Chandrakala on 6 March, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9532
MFA No. 6257 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6257 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
SON OF LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
RESIDING AT ALLALASANDRA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI, G.K.V.K. POST,
BENGALURU - 560 065
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RAMYA D
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. DR. CHANDRAKALA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
WIFE OF SRI. SHIVAMURTHAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.90/1, G-12,
1ST MAIN ROAD, "GARDEN VILAS",
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
ALSO AT; NO.2189, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR,
DAVANAGERE - 5770055.
2. SMT. KALPANA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF SRI. H.N. VITTAL RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.6, 1ST FLOOR,
"OLD POLICE STATION BUILDING",
R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.
3. THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9532
MFA No. 6257 of 2023
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT/SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1
R2 & R3 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.13.07.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.4855/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-26),
ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Defendant No.1 has filed this appeal questioning the
order passed in OS.No.4855/2021 dated 13.07.2023 by the
Court of X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-26), thereby allowing IA No.I filed under Order 39 Rule 1
and 2 of CPC, and granting an interim order of temporary
injunction directing defendant No.1 not to interfere with
possession of the plaintiff's over the schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC:9532
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, to
declare that she is the owner of suit schedule properties 'A' and
'B'. 'B' schedule property is the portion of 'A' schedule property.
Further, the plaintiff sought for relief of praying mandatory
injunction against defendant No.1 to remove the unauthorized
construction (temporary shed) of 10X15 feet as described in
schedule 'B' and also for permanent injunction against
defendant No.1 not to interfere with the plaintiff's possession
over the suit schedule property.
3. The Trial Court after considering that defendant
No.3-Society executed registered absolute sale deed in favour
of defendant No.2 under registered sale deed dated 14.12.2000
and thereafter, defendant No.2 executed absolute sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 is claiming that before
compromise decree between the defendant No.2 and defendant
No.3-Society, he was the owner of the property. When this
being the contents as shown regarding declaration, to decide
who is the owner of the property, then that becomes prima
facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The Trial Court has
observed that since the plaintiff is claiming her title through
sale deed executed by defendant No.2 and at the same time,
NC: 2025:KHC:9532
defendant No.1 has not produced materials to show that 'A'
schedule property is in his actual possession. If defendant No.1
makes an attempt to construct or put up construction on the 'B'
schedule, it amounts to causing irreparable injury to the
plaintiff. Therefore, upon these reasons, as plaintiff has shown
prima facie case in his favour and if temporary injunction is not
granted, it will cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the balance of convenience is in favour of the
plaintiff. Accordingly, granted an order of temporary injunction
restraining the defendant No.1 not to interfere with the
possession of the plaintiff's property.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1
submitted that the prayer in the application is not to cause
change, construction in the schedule property but the interim
order granted is different than what is sought by the plaintiff.
When the plaintiff has made prayer seeking direction against
defendant No.1 not to cause any change and construction on
the suit schedule property, it is nothing but observing that
defendant No.1 is causing interference with the possession of
the property. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly granted an
order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
NC: 2025:KHC:9532
Therefore, there is no perversity found in the impugned order.
Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal
is dismissed.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
BH
