Karnataka High Court
Sri Vijaya Raghavan vs Sri Mahesh V on 10 March, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10016
MFA No. 8531 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8531 OF 2024 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2025 (CPC)
IN MFA No. 8531/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN
S/O LATE RANGANATH S. K.
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
R/O FLAT NO.202, SRI RAMA KAMAL RESIDENCY,
H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, 2" BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE -560043.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RANJITHKUMAR R S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court SRI. MAHESH V
of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O SRI M. VENKATESH
R/O #401 MDM PARADISE, 3RD MAIN,
3RD CROSS, GANEHA TEMPLE STREET,
HRBR 3RD BLOCK, KACHARAKANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 084.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, ADV. FOR CAVEAT RESPONDENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.
NO.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO. 5924/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10016
MFA No. 8531 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCCH-42), ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER
ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
IN MFA NO. 393/2025
BETWEEN:
SRI VIJAYA RAGHAVAN
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
S/O LATE RANGANATH S.K.
R/O FLAT NO.202,
SRI RAMA KAMAL RESIDENCY,
H.R.B.R. LAYOUT, 2" BLOCK,
KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RANJITHKUMAR R S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI MAHESH V.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O SRI. M. VENKATESH,
R/O #401 MDM PARADISE
3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
GANESHA TEMPLE STREET,
HRBR 3RD BLOCK, KACHARAKANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 084.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, ADV. FOR CAVEAT RESPONDENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION
151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2024
PASSED ON I.A.NO.2/2024 IN OS.NO.5924/2024 ON THE
FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU SCCH-42 REJECTING THE IA.2/2024
FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10016
MFA No. 8531 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 393 of 2025
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the
impugned order passed on IA Nos.1 and 2 filed under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code
of Civil Procedure, in O.S.No.5924/2024 on the file of XLI
Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.42)
(hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) whereby
IA No.1 which was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and IA
No.2 filed by defendant No.2 was rejected, directing the
defendant No.2 not to interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
by the respondent/plaintiff till the disposal of the suit, has
preferred these appeals.
2. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the
plaintiff's grandparents were the owners of land in
NC: 2025:KHC:10016
Sy.No.29/1 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru, which originally had an extent of 1 acre 34
guntas. After the demise of his grand parents, the suit
schedule property fell into the share of father of the
plaintiff and thereafter, katha was effected in the name of
plaintiff's father. Thereafter, the said land in Sy.No.29/1
measuring 1 acre 34 guntas was acquired by Bangalore
Development Authority ('BDA' for short) for the purpose of
formation of Banaswadi Road and Hennur Road layout and
plaintiff's father's name was notified as kathedar of the
said property on the requisition made by him for
reconveyance of entire extend of land. But, the BDA has
reconveyed the said land only to the extent of 1 acre 17
guntas out of 1 acre 34 guntas. Thereafter, converted the
land and demarcated sites in Sy.No.29/1 to an extent of 1
acre 17 guntas was reconveyed to the plaintiff's father and
he was in possession of the same. Plaintiff's father has
executed a gift deed dated 27.12.2023 in favour of
respondent/plaintiff in respect of site No.3C-301/7 and the
application made by the respondent/plaintiff for effecting
NC: 2025:KHC:10016
katha is pending consideration and the property was
fenced and at the time of construction of compound wall,
the appellant/defendant interfered with the plaintiff's
possession and prevented putting of compound wall by the
respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff
has filed the suit in O.S.No.5924/2024.
3. On the other hand, appellant/defendant has
filed IA No.2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of
temporary injunction restraining the respondent/plaintiff
from interfering with the appellant/defendant's possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
4. It is the case made out by the
appellant/defendant that the plaintiff's father namely,
Venkatesh has executed the sale deed in respect of
property No.34, Kacharakanahalli, measuring 30x60 ft in
favour of one Sri. Jayarame Gowda in the year 1992 and
katha was changed in the name of said Jayarame Gowda.
Subsequently, in the year 1994, the said Jayarame
NC: 2025:KHC:10016
Gowda has sold the said property to the
appellant/defendant and his wife and as such, the
appellant/defendant is the owner of the said property.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for
the appellant/defendant that the said Jayarame Gowda
had constructed the house and the appellant/defendant in
turn has purchased the house. When this being the
scenario, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for
permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant
stating that the property belongs to the
respondent/plaintiff and he is in possession of the suit
schedule property. Though the appellant/defendant had
ignorance of the fact that the said land belongs to the
father of the respondent/plaintiff, he has produced the
documents such as sale deed dated 14.02.1992 and
22.09.1994, katha certificate, encumbrance certificate,
property tax paid receipt, water bill, electricity bill,
building construction license issued to Jayarame Gowda
and photographs of the building which shows that the said
NC: 2025:KHC:10016
Jayarame Gowda has sold the property in favour of
defendant and his wife pertaining to house list
No.2111/13, katha No.3315, property No.34 situated at
Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru.
6. On contrary, the respondent/plaintiff is
disputing that the alleged katha produced by the appellant
/defendant in respect of the said property is shown as
property No.34 by contending that the property he is
referring to and the appellant/defendant is referring to,
are different properties and prima-facie there is no
document to show that, both properties are one and the
same.
7. Alternatively, learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant submits that boundaries mentioned in
the sale deed executed by said Jayarame Gowda in favour
of defendant and the boundaries mentioned in the gift
deed executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of
respondent/plaintiff are one and the same. When this
being the scenario, it is contended that the
NC: 2025:KHC:10016
appellant/defendant is residing in the said house property
for about 34 years and still he is claiming that he is in
possession of the property.
8. Considering the above factors, this Court is of
the view that till disposal of the suit, both the parties shall
maintain status-quo regarding possession of the property
as on the date of filing suit. With this observation, the
appeals are disposed of. Further, the Trial Court is
directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible
taking into consideration of the fact that the
appellant/defendant is a senior citizen more than 85 years
old and also both the parties shall co-operate for speedy
and effective disposal of the suit.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
SSD
