Narayanaswamy vs Sri Shanmugam
2025 Latest Caselaw 5115 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Narayanaswamy vs Sri Shanmugam on 17 March, 2025

Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

                                                    -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC:10893
                                                             MFA No. 5578 of 2024



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                               DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
                                                BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
                       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5578 OF 2024 (CPC)


                       BETWEEN:

                       SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
                       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                       S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
                       R/AT NO.38, 2ND MAIN,
                       1ST CROSS, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT,
                       OPPOSITE TO SS PARADISE APARTMENT,
                       HORAMAVU VILLAGE AND POST,
                       BANGALORE-560043.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                       (BY SRI. R.S. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)


                       AND:

                       1.    SRI SHANMUGAM
                             AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                             S/O DORERAJ,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
                       2.    SRI. GNANAPRAKASHAM PUSHPARAJU,
                             AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
                             S/O LATE M. GNANAPRAKASHAM,

                             BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1135,
                             3RD CROSS, 3RD A MAIN,
                             RAMAIAH LAYOUT,
                             KAMMANAHALLI,
                             BANGALORE-560043.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                       (BY SRI. P C NARASIMHAIAH, ADV./CR FOR R1 AND R2.)
                                  -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:10893
                                                MFA No. 5578 of 2024



        THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.27.01.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN
O.S.NO.26506/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDITIONAL
CITY    CIVIL   AND    SESSIONS        JUDGE,    MAYO   HALL    UNIT,
BENGALURU, (CCH-58), REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39
RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.


        THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

                         ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated

27.01.2024 passed on IA No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1

and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.26506/2023 by the

Court of LVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit,

Bengaluru (CCH-58), (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for

short) thereby rejecting the application, has preferred this

appeal.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed suit for permanent

injunction against the respondents/defendants and filed IA No.1

under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of Code of

Civil Procedure, seeking ad-interim temporary injunction

restraining defendants from interfering with the peaceful

NC: 2025:KHC:10893

possession of the appellant/plaintiff in respect of suit schedule

property till disposal of the suit.

3. Further, the appellant/plaintiff submits that the

scheduled site No.1 pertains to land bearing Sy.No.85/2 of

Horamavu Agrahara Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East

Taluk, Bangalore.

4. The respondents/defendants has filed written

statement stating that the scheduled site No.1 in Sy.No.85/2 as

contended by the plaintiff is not in existence but the said site is

situated in land bearing Sy.No.85/1 of Horamavu Village, K.R.

Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, and the said site

is a vacant one and defendants have claimed right, title and

interest over the said suit schedule property on the basis of

sale deed dated 20.08.2004. Similarly, the appellant/plaintiff

has also claimed right, title and interest over the suit schedule

property on the basis of sale deed dated 12.04.2007.

5. When there is a rival dispute between the parties

with regard to claiming title of ownership, the appellant/plaintiff

has filed suit for permanent injunction. With this being the

ambiguity in identifying the sites by the parties whether the

NC: 2025:KHC:10893

site they are referring to pertaining to Sy.No.85/1 or 85/2, for

this, the appellant/plaintiff has to produce the documents to

prove his contention. Admittedly the said site is a vacant site

and also the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for

short) has cancelled the khata issued in respect of

appellant/plaintiff. Though the appellant/plaintiff has

contended that the said cancellation of khata in respect of site

in Sy.No.85/1,but the site which the plaintiff is referring to

pertains to Sy.No.85/2. When this being the rival dispute

regarding claiming title of ownership and moreover the said site

is a vacant one, the Trial Court upon findings, come to

conclusion that there is no material produced by the

appellant/plaintiff that the appellant/plaintiff is in possession of

the suit schedule property. Thus, in this way, the

appellant/plaintiff has failed to make prima-facie case and as

such, the Trial Court has rejected the application of the

plaintiff.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, in my view, there is no

error found in the order of the Trial Court in rejecting IA No.1

filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be

dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.

NC: 2025:KHC:10893

7. In view of dismissal of main appeal, the pending

interlocutory application stand dismissed.

Sd/-

(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

SSD