Karnataka High Court
Lokesh Naik M L vs Sri. H P Vedavyasacharya on 14 November, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
MFA No. 2756 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2756 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. LOKESH NAIK M L
S/O LATE LACHAMMA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2. SRI PREMA BAI
W/O SRI LOKESH NAIK M L
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
BOTH APPELLANTS R/AT,
NO.32/3, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
V V NAGARA, VASANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 061
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIVEK S REDDY, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. SUBBA REDDY.K.N, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
PAVITHRA B
Location: 1. SRI. H P VEDAVYASACHARYA
HIGH
COURT OF S/O LATE SRI. HAVERI PRANESHACHARYA,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
2. SMT. LATHA. N,
W/O H.P. VEDAVYASACHARYA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.B-91, SAMEERAPURA,
APOORVA CROSS ROAD,
6TH MAIN, CHAMARAJAPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
MFA No. 2756 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SRI. YASHODHARA,
S/O N. RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
4. SMT. CHAYA S.
W/O SRI. YASHODHARA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/A NO.170, 2ND
CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
SRINIVASANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 050
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. RAJESWARA P.N, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2025 PASSED BY THE
HONBLE LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-76) ALLOWING THE APPLICATION DATED 08.07.2022
FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS SEEKING-IMPLEAD THE PROPOSED
PLAINTIFF, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS APPEAL IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the appellants/proposed
plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 questioning the order dated
11.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.XVII filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in
OS.No.3938/2015 on the file of LXXV Addl. City Civil and
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
Sessions Judge, (CCH-76), Bangalore, thereby, restraining
appellants No.3 and 4 or their agents/henchmen or
anyone claiming under them from entering or in any
manner carrying out any work in the schedule
properties/suit schedule properties till the disposal of the
suit.
2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are plaintiff Nos.1
and 2 have filed the suit against respondent Nos.1 and 2
who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the
plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule
'B' property through common passage for ingress and
egress and other legally permitted usages such as laying
of water, drainage and electricity pipes and also for
permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 to
remove the illegal structure put up by them in this space
of 5 feet passage on the eastern side and also prayed for
mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove
pipes fixed by defendant Nos.1 and 2, which are projecting
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
to the set back left by the plaintiffs on the northern side of
schedule 'B' property and also for mandatory injunction
issuing direction to the defendants to remove the
windows/window frames put up on the walls erected by
the defendants on the southern side of the property
without leaving any set back.
PLAINT:
3. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.3 and 4 in
this appeal have filed the suit by contending that the
defendants were joint owners in possession of suit
schedule 'A' property No.298 measuring 40 x 60 feet as
described in the schedule by virtue of the sale deed dated
31.08.2005 executed by the Bangalore Development
Authority.
4. It is pleaded that the defendants sold a portion
of property measuring 30 x 40 feet on the southern side of
schedule 'A' property in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2
under the registered sale deed dated 05.12.2008, which is
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
described as schedule 'B' property. The Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA) has approved the division of
schedule 'A' property and assigned new numbers as 298/1
and 298/2 on 22.09.2011 and also issued separate katha
certificates in respect of schedule 'B' property.
5. It is submitted that there are terms and
conditions while making the division of schedule 'A'
property by bifurcating the same and new property as
schedule 'B' property and there are terms and conditions
in the sale deed dated 05.12.2008 with regard to usage of
passage and relinquishing the rights over 2 and ½ feet on
the northern side of schedule 'B' property by the plaintiffs
in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The same is found in
the said sale deed at paragraph No.3 in page No.3. It is
further pleaded that by virtue of the said sale deed dated
05.12.2008 the defendants retained a portion in the
schedule property as a clear approach on its northern side,
since it is facing towards northern side.
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
6. The plaintiffs have only approach through 5 feet
passage (located on the northern side of schedule 'B'
property and western side of the property retained by the
defendants). It is submitted that the plaintiffs have agreed
to part with 2 and ½ feet in favour of defendants for the
purpose of putting up of steps and staircase out of the
portion of the property agreed to be sold in favour of the
plaintiffs and in turn, the defendants have agreed to leave
5 feet on the eastern side of schedule 'A' property for
being used as a common passage, so as to provide ingress
and egress to schedule 'B' property of plaintiff Nos.1 and
2. Therefore, in view of the terms and conditions in the
sale deed dated 05.12.2008 the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have
relinquished the rights over 2 and ½ feet x 35 feet in
favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 for putting up of staircase
for building to be put up by defendants in their property,
and ultimately retaining 27 and ½ x 40 feet i.e., schedule
'B' property and have rights to use the passage of 5 feet
for the purpose of ingress and egress for the property.
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
7. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have sold the schedule 'B'
property in favour of proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4. The
plaintiffs have pleaded that since the defendant Nos.1 and
2 have started construction by using 2 and ½ feet left by
them on the northern side of schedule 'B' property and
when the defendants started putting up sajja in the
passage and by putting sanitary and water pipes to the
walls, which have been projected towards the set back of
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, therefore, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have
filed the suit for the relief of temporary injunction as
above described.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
8. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a detailed
written statement denying the averments made in the
plaint except admitted facts. It is submitted that plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 and defendants were in goods terms and
having cordial relationship between them. It is also
admitted that the defendants have sold the suit schedule
'B' property in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 through
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
registered sale deed dated 05.12.2008 by apportioning the
suit schedule 'A' property into two halves. The southern
side of the suit schedule 'A' property was sold to plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, the relationship between plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 and defendants became strained.
9. It is pleading of the defendants that they have
never objected to any kind of construction on the suit
schedule 'B' property, but at a very early stage of
construction in the portion allotted to the defendants in
suit schedule 'A' property, there was interference and
obstruction by the plaintiffs. Also, it is alleged that plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 have removed the pipes laid down by the
defendants, which were affixed to the wall of the
defendants. It is also alleged that at the initial point of
time, plaintiff No.1 had beaten the son of the defendants.
Thereafter, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 laying pipes for drainage,
sewerage and electricity; therefore, it is contention of the
defendants that the plaintiffs have only a right of passage
and do not have any other right for construction or
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
development over the passage, but plaintiff Nos.1 and 2
tried to lay down pipes in the passage. In this regard, a
complaint before the Police was lodged against plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2.
10. It is submitted that when plaintiff Nos.1 and 2
have failed to lay pipeline in the alleged common passage,
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have negotiating with the prospective
buyers and ultimately sold the suit schedule 'B' property to
people of a community who are meat-eating people so as
to give harassment to the defendants. The defendants are
feeling inconvenient about selling of suit schedule 'B'
property to the buyers who are non-vegetarian, but
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have sold the suit schedule property
in favour of plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 during subsistence of an
order of temporary injunction in O.S.No.3938/2015. The
defendants have filed an application for temporary
injunction against the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 not to alienate
the suit schedule 'B' property and the trial Court has
granted an order of temporary injunction on 19.06.2019
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
restraining plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 from alienating the suit
schedule 'B' property but in violation of temporary
injunction order dated 19.06.2019, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2
have sold the suit schedule 'B' property to plaintiff Nos.3
and 4 through registered sale deed 24.06.2022. Thus,
there is violation of order of temporary injunction granted
by the Trial Court.
11. Thereafter, plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 started to lay
pipeline in the common passage; therefore, defendant
Nos.1 and 2 have filed I.A.No.17 under Order XXXIX Rules
1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to grant an
order of temporary injunction against plaintiff Nos.3 and 4
restraining them from carrying out any work in the
common passage and the Trial Court has allowed the said
application (I.A.No.17) restraining the proposed
plaintiffs/plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 and granted an order of
temporary injunction from entering or in any manner
carrying out any work on the common passage.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
12. Being aggrieved by the said order of granting
temporary injunction, plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 have filed the
present appeal.
13. Having heard the arguments from both the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon
perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed before
the Trial Court and this Court, the following points would
arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case,
demonstrate that the defendants have
not made out prima facie case for grant
of temporary injunction against plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 from carrying out work in
the schedule property?
(ii) Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case,
demonstrates that the defendants do
not have balance of convenience so as
to grant an order of temporary
injunction against plaintiff Nos.1 and 2?
(iii) Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, if
an order of temporary injunction is not
would suffer any irreparable loss and
injury?
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
(iv) Whether the order passed by the trial
Court requires interference by this
Court?
14. Learned Senior counsel for the
appellants/proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 submitted that
plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 have purchased 'B' schedule property
on 24.06.2022 through registered sale deed from plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 and the appellants are now carrying out only
the work of laying pipelines for sewage and drinking water
facilities under the beneath of the surface in the common
passage without affecting the rights of the defendants. If
the appellants/proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are not
permitted, then the proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 would
be deprived of getting basic necessities of drinking water
and also discharge of sewage water. Therefore, the interim
order of temporary injunction granted is causing loss and
injury to the plaintiffs by which plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are
not in a position to make use of their 'B' schedule house
property and thus, the enjoyment of basic necessities such
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
as getting drinking water and discharge of sewage water,
underground electricity cable connection. These basic
necessities are not only fundamental, but also human
rights, for which, the defendants are obstructing without
any reasons. Therefore, the order of trial Court is illegal
and perverse. Hence, prays to allow the appeal by setting
aside the order passed by the trial Court.
15. Further submitted that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2
have purchased 'B' schedule property out of 'A' schedule
property which is half portion of 'A' schedule property.
There is a recital in the sale deed dated 05.12.2008 and
therefore, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have right over the
common passage and subsequently, after purchasing 'B'
schedule property by the proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4
from plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, the said right of whole passage
is conveyed. Thus, the defendants are estopped in making
interference and obstruction in making use of passage, but
the trial Court without considering this prima facie material
has granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
the defendants which is causing loss and injury to plaintiff
Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, prays to set aside the order by
allowing the appeal.
16. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for
the defendants submitted that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 after
purchasing 'B' schedule property out of half portion of 'A'
schedule property has started harassment and causing
injury to the defendants. Further submitted that the
generosity shown by the defendants is being misused by
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and with vengeance plaintiff Nos.1
and 2 have sold 'B' schedule property to plaintiff Nos.3
and 4. The defendants have obtained the order of
temporary injunction on 19.06.2019 and during the
subsistence of the said interim order of injunction plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 have sold the 'B' schedule property to
proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 on 24.06.2022. Therefore,
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have violated the order of temporary
injunction. Therefore, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as well as
plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are not entitled to the relief of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
equitable relief by uplifting the order of temporary
injunction.
17. Further submitted that once I.A.Nos.3 and 4 are
allowed, it is not permissible for plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 to
take different view as that of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 on the
principle of application of res judicata. Further submitted
that the appeal filed by proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 is
not maintainable as they do not have locus standi to
challenge the order. Therefore, submitted that the appeal
filed by plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 is liable to be dismissed.
18. Considering the factors that admittedly the
defendants are the owners of 'A' schedule property having
been allotted by Bangalore Development Authority through
the registered sale deed dated 05.12.2008. It is stated
that the defendants and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were having
a good relationship between them and therefore, the
defendants have sold half portion of the suit schedule 'A'
property towards southern side, which is described as the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
suit schedule 'B' property, through registered sale deed
dated 05.12.2008. Thereafter, cordial relationship between
the defendants and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 was strained,
then plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have filed the suit against the
defendants in the month of November 2014, alleging that
the defendants started construction by using 2 and ½ feet
left by them on the northern side of the suit schedule
property and also the defendants started putting up of
sajja in the passage and had fixed sanitary water pipes to
the walls, which have been projected towards the setback
left to the plaintiffs.
19. Also, it is allegation of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 that
the defendants have prevented plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 from
laying water, electricity and sanitary pipes under the
common passage and therefore, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 filed
a complaint before the Police. Hence, by raising these
causes of action, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have instituted the
suit.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
20. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed
the written statement denying the plaint averments. The
defendants came to know that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were
attempting to alienate the suit schedule 'B' property to
non-vegetarian people, which would infringe the religious
sentiments of the defendants. Therefore, the defendants
have filed an interlocutory application (I.A.No.4) under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC
against plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 from alienating the suit
schedule 'B' property. The Trial Court has allowed the said
application on 19.06.2019 and the said order of temporary
injunction is still in force. During the subsistence of the
said order of temporary injunction on 24.06.2022, plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 have sold the suit schedule 'B' property in
favour of plaintiff Nos.3 and 4. Hence, plaintiff Nos.3 and 4
have stepped into shoes of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2.
21. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents/defendants that plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 have violated the order of temporary
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
injunction passed by the trial Court and for which, a
separate proceeding was initiated and the same is pending
before the Trial Court. Hence, submitted that plaintiff
Nos.3 and 4 also do not take different view as that of
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2.
22. Though, according to the defendants, plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 have violated the order of temporary
injunction as they have sold the suit schedule 'B' property
to plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, the question is whether, in the
common passage, when the plaintiffs are laying water
pipeline and the sanitary pipeline for discharge of waste
materials, whether this can be prevented in the
background that these are the basic necessities for life.
The proceeding for violation of order temporary injunction
is different thing, but on the guise of it, how far preventing
plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, restraining them from laying water
pipeline and sanitary pipe line and getting other basic
amenities, could be prevented. It is the pleading of the
plaintiffs that in the sale deed while purchasing the suit
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
schedule 'B' property, there is a recital in the said sale
deed regarding usage of passage and relinquishing rights
of 2 and ½ feet on the northern side of the suit schedule
'B' property by the plaintiffs. Now at the most, plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 have started the work regarding laying
pipeline and sanitary pipeline for making proper way for
drinking water for the house and discharge of liquid waste
materials through sanitary pipes. The Trial Court devoted
much space to discuss principles of governing law of
injunction, but the Trial Court, in its cryptic order at
paragraph No.17, stated that the plaintiffs have executed
the sale deed in respect of suit schedule 'B' property in
favour of proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 on 24.06.2022 in
violation of the order of injunction and hence formed
opinion that the defendants have made out prima facie
case and granted an order of temporary injunction
restraining the plaintiffs from carrying out work on the
schedule passage.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
23. Prima facie, from the sale deed while
purchasing the suit schedule property, there is a recital to
leave a common passage of 5 x 30 feet width for
utilization of the common passage and for providing
ingress and egress to the plaintiffs to the suit schedule 'B'
property. At the most, it is an attempt made by the
plaintiffs to lay separate pipeline for drinking water to the
suit schedule 'B' property and laying pipeline for
discharging liquid waste materials. The Trial Court has not
considered this aspect before granting an order of
temporary injunction, whether it would cause injury or loss
to the plaintiffs or not. The Trial Court has just swayed
away on the fact that while passing an order of temporary
injunction that in violation of the order of temporary
injunction, the suit schedule 'B' property was sold out.
However, the Trial Court has not considered that if an
order of temporary injunction is granted as prayed for by
the defendants, then in what way it would cause loss and
injury to plaintiff Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the order passed
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
by the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with. Thus, the
impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside.
Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) to (iv) in the
Affirmative. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
24. Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances involved in the case and respective
pleadings, certain directions are necessary to be issued,
which are as follows:
a. The proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 and
defendants shall not make any construction
over the common passage of
5 x 30 feet as set out in the registered sale
deed dated 05.12.2008 of selling suit
schedule 'B' property.
b. The appellants/proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and
4 are given liberty to lay pipeline under the
common passage only under the beneath of
laying pipe for drinking water, sanitary pipes
and if necessary to take electricity
connection without affecting the defendants
right to make use of other side of their
house.
c. The defendants shall not make any
construction affecting the ingress and egress
through the common passage.
d. Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 after laying pipeline as
above stated under the ground and make
surface so as to be conducive for making
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46766
HC-KAR
normal use of the common passage by the
defendants.
e. The proposed plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 on the
guise of laying pipes under the beneath of
the common passage, shall not in any way
make works so as to obstruct the defendants
right to use common passage.
25. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated
11.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.XVII
filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and
file of LXXV Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, (CCH-76),
Bangalore is hereby set aside and
certain directions are issued as
above stated.
iii. Both the parties shall obey the
directions as stated at paragraph
No.24.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PB/SRA
