[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmamma vs Sri C R Raghavendra Reddy on 31 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
MFA No. 8232 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8232 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RESIDING AT BHEEKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
2. SMT. SAKAMMA
W/O CHANNARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHOKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
3. SRI. MANJUNATH
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
COURT OF RESIDING AT BHEEMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI C.R.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE C.R.RAJAGOPAL REDDY
RESIDING AT NO.468/H, 9TH K MAIN,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
MFA No. 8232 of 2025
HC-KAR
HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560040
SRI. MUNIRAJU
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
2. SMT. VANAJA
W/O LATE N.MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
3. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
4. SMT. NEELAMMA
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
5. KUMARI KEERTHANA TRIGUNASHRI
D/O LATE N MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT HORAMAVU AGARA
VILLAGE AND POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560043.
SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
6. SRI. R NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2 CROSS,
GANAPATHI LAYOUT,
HORAMAVU AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
HORAMAVU POST, K R PURAM,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560043.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
MFA No. 8232 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. SMT. R SUNANDA
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2, M.M.CROSS,
MARAPPA GARDEN, BENSON TOWN,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENAGALURU-560046.
8. SRI. R DEVARAJ
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2 CROSS,
GANAPATHI LAYOUT,
HORAMAVU AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
HORAMAVU POST, K R PURAM,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.R.MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 ALONG WITH
SRI. S.K.VENKATACHALAPATHI FOR C/R1
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.01.2026,
NOTICE TO R2 TO R8 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.01.2026, THIS
DAY, AN JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
MFA No. 8232 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.C.S.Prasanna Kumar., counsel for the appellants and
Sri.G.R.Mohan., along with Sri.S.K.Venkatachalapathi., counsel
for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.
2. For convenience's sake, the parties shall be referred
to by their ranking and status before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration
that he is the absolute owner in possession of property bearing
Survey No.67/1, situated at Horomavu Agara Village, K.R.
Puram, Hobli. Bangalore East Taluk, a declaration that the
registered sale deed dated 29.04.2019 executed by defendants
1 to 4 in favour of defendants 6 to 8 is null and void and for
consequential permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed
ownership through a registered sale deed dated
10.09.2004,said to have been executed in his favour by one
Smt.Saraswathamma.
The plaintiff applied under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2,
read with section 151 of CPC for a temporary injunction. The
Trial Court granted an ex-parte temporary injunction. The
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
HC-KAR
defendants filed a written statement, denying the plaint
averments. Notably, the defendant Nos. 6 to 8 advanced a
unified position, adopting the same contentions (as set out in
the written statement) in their objections to the applications.
The Trial Court vide order dated 18.10.2025 allowed the
applications. Under these circumstances, defendant Nos. 6 to 8
have filed the appeal on several grounds, as set out in the
memorandum of appeal.
4. Counsel for the respective parties presented several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
care.
5. Is the Trial Court justified in allowing the
applications?
6. Before addressing this point directly, we should first
briefly review the basics of a temporary injunction.
An injunction is a judicial proceeding whereby a party is
required to do, or to refrain from doing, any particular act. It is
a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to the
particular person that either prohibits him from doing or
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
HC-KAR
continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction), or
orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).
Injunctions are of two kinds:
(i) Temporary and
(ii) Permanent.
A permanent injunction restrains a party forever from
doing the specified act and can be granted only on the merits
at the conclusion of the trial after hearing both parties to the
suit. On the other hand, a temporary or interim injunction
restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and
can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until further
orders of the Court. It is regulated by the provisions of Order
XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may be granted
at any stage of the suit.
Before granting the temporary injunction, the following
considerations are required to be satisfied:
(i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant.
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
HC-KAR
(ii) That irreparable injury is likely to be
caused to the plaintiff which cannot be
compensated for in terms of money.
(iii) That the balance of convenience lies in
favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.
(iv) The conduct of the plaintiff should be fair
and honest.
7. Acknowledging the background, the factual data
present the following picture.
The plaintiff initiated the present suit seeking several
reliefs. The main reliefs sought, among others, are for a
declaration that the registered sale deed dated 29.04.2019
executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendants 6 to 8 is
null and void.
8. Suffice it to note that one Sri.Narayanappa sold
land bearing Sy.No.87/1 measuring 1 Acre 17 Guntas to one
Sri.Munivenkatappa, who in turn sold the very same land in
favor of Smt.Sarawatamma. Crucially, the suit (O.S.NO.
32/2004) instituted by Smt.Saraswathamma for a declaration
that she is the absolute owner of Sy.No.67/1 was dismissed on
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
HC-KAR
December 13 2006, because she had no semblance of right or
possession over Sy.No.67/1. The plaintiff purchased the
property, i.e., Sy.No.87/1 from Smt.Saraswathamma during
the pendency of the suit (O.S.No.32/2004).
The law is well settled that a purchaser during litigation is
considered a transferee pendente lite, meaning they are bound
by the final decree under the doctrine of lis pendens (Section
52, Transfer of Property Act). They cannot obstruct execution,
as their rights are subservient to the Court's decision,
regardless of their knowledge of the suit. The Plaintiff claims
absolute title and ownership by virtue of a sale deed executed
by Smt.Sarawatamma on 10.09.2004. The transfer occurred
during the pendency of the suit, making it subject to the
doctrine of lis pendens. The purchaser is a transferee pendente
lite and is bound by the result of the suit.
The controversy largely centres on the rectification of the
survey number and the mutation proceedings (or "entry in the
record of rights") in favor of the plaintiff. Considerable
argument has been canvassed regarding the rectification of the
survey number and the mutation of the plaintiff's name in the
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
HC-KAR
revenue records. Perused the impugned order with care. The
Trial Court granted a temporary injunction, holding that the
plaintiff had made out a prima facie case by substituting Survey
No. 87/1 with 67/1. There was a fundamental error in Property
Identity. The Trial Court erred in granting a temporary
injunction by substituting Survey No. 87/1 with 67/1. The
injunction granted is based on a fundamental misconception of
the property in dispute, which is fatal to the grant of an interim
order. The Trial Court erred in law and on the facts by
substituting Survey No. 87/1 with Survey No. 67/1 without any
supporting evidence. Having concluded that the survey number
has not been rectified, the Trial Court erred in substituting
survey number 87/1 with 67/1, as there was no admissible
evidence or pleaded case to suggest that the mentioned survey
number was a mistake. The Trial Judge erred in law by holding
that the survey number in the Sale Deed dated 07.07.1956 was
wrongly mentioned as 87/1 instead of 67/1, despite having
simultaneously recorded a finding that said document has not
been rectified, thus acting contrary to law and evidence on
record.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
HC-KAR
9. I may venture to say that the finding of the Trial
Judge that the survey number is 67/1 is perverse and
contradictory, as it directly contradicts its own finding that the
survey number has not been officially rectified. The Court has
erroneously allowed a challenge to a registered document
without evidence of a registered rectification deed.
Furthermore, the plaintiff explicitly states in a sworn
declaration that the survey number in question remains un-
rectified. The Trial Court erred in granting an injunction, as the
plaintiff's own sworn declaration establishes a discrepancy in
the survey number that clouds the title. To be precise, given
the plaintiff's own admission in the declaration of facts that the
survey number has not been rectified, no prima facie case
exists to warrant an order of a temporary injunction.
Moreover, there is a misapplication of the boundaries
Rule; While legal precedent holds that boundaries generally
prevail over survey numbers, this does not permit the Court to
replace an entirely different survey number (87/1 to 67/1)
without proper amendment of pleadings and evidence, as this
denies the defendant the opportunity to defend their title to the
specific land, 67/1.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
HC-KAR
10. For an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff/s must
typically demonstrate a prima facie case, the balance of
convenience in their favor, and the likelihood of suffering
irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. It is a well-
settled principle of law that interim relief can always be granted
in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief available to the
party on final determination of his rights in a suit or any
proceedings. Therefore, a Court undoubtedly possesses the
power to grant interim relief during the pendency of the suit.
Temporary injunctions are thus injunctions issued during the
pendency of the proceedings.
The Trial Court has erred in observing that the plaintiffs
have made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary
injunction, as the material and record did not demonstrate
sufficient grounds for immediate intervention, nor was the
balance of convenience established in the plaintiff's favour. The
plaintiff did not satisfy the foundational requirement for
temporary relief, particularly failing to make out a prima facie
case that warranted such an equitable intervention.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
HC-KAR
The power to grant or refuse a temporary injunction rests
on the sound exercise of discretion by the Court, which must be
based on established principles, including a prima facie case,
balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The grant or
refusal of a temporary is a matter of judicial discretion, and the
Trial Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously and on
sound legal principles, establishing a strong prima facie case
and balance of conveniences. Therefore, the order is liable to
be set aside, as it is arbitrary and capricious. The Trial Court
arrived at an improper conclusion, which warrants interference
from this Court.
11. The plaintiff's counsel has submitted various
documents; however, as this appeal is limited to an interim
application, this Court declines to expand its scope to consider
them.
12. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated
October 18th 2025 passed by the Court of the XXII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru City (CCH-7) on
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.4175/2019 is set aside.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5696
HC-KAR
Because of disposal of the appeal, interim order granted if
any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if
any are disposed of.
SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
List No.:1 Sl.No.:1
