Dismissed¶128

Mr. Mohammed Shahid Ahmed v. Smt. Nagarathna

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2025MFA/226/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction — Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC; scope of appellate interference with discretionary orders; nemo dat quod non habet; registered sale deed not conclusive of title; BDA acquisition — preliminary notification 8.9.1991 (No.LAQ (1) CR 48780-81), final notification 1988, BDA Act 1976; NGEF Employees House Building Society allotment; settled possession / possessio pedis; tax paid receipts as corroborative evidence; plausible title at interim stage; injunctions not granted in aid of doubtful rights; balance of convenience; irreparable injury; Bengaluru; OS No.1781/2024; MFAs 226/2025, 95/2025, 227/2025 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the impugned common order dated 20.12.2024 passed in OS No.1781/2024 was affirmed. ¶128

Mr. Mohammed Shahid Ahmed Vs Smt. Nagarathna — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the impugned common order dated 20.12.2024 passed in OS No.1781/2024 was affirmed.

¶128

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's common order dated 20.12.2024 — rejecting the appellant's I.A.No.1 for temporary injunction and allowing respondent No.1's I.As.Nos.2 and 3 — is manifestly erroneous, arbitrary or unsustainable and warrants interference in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. +2 more

¶87

Court's answer

There is no merit in the appeals; the trial court's findings are neither perverse nor contrary to law and do not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.

¶123

Ratio / Principle

The impugned common order dated 20.12.2024 passed in OS No.1781/2024 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.19), Bengaluru is affirmed.

¶130

Key takeaways

Appeals under Order 43 Rule 1(r) permit only limited interference with the trial court's discretionary orders: interference is warranted only where the discretion is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or vitiated by perversity; the appellate jurisdiction corrects abuse of discretion but does not substitute its own.ratio¶99
Temporary injunction requires the applicant to demonstrate (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) irreparable injury; these factors are interrelated and must be considered holistically.ratio¶101
A registered sale deed is not conclusive proof of title where the root of title is seriously questioned; under the nemo dat rule a vendor without title — his title being clouded by the earlier acquisition of the land by the State agency — cannot convey better title, so the appellant cannot claim any better title than his vendor.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ramachandra D. Huddar, J.) dismisses MFA Nos. 226, 95 and 227 of 2025 (filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC) and affirms the common order dated 20.12.2024 of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-19), Bengaluru in OS No.1781/2024, by which the appellant's I.A.No.1 for temporary injunction (Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) was rejected and respondent No.1's I.As.Nos.2 and 3 — restraining the appellant from interfering with peaceful possession and from alienating the suit schedule property — were allowed. Held: (i) appellate interference with discretionary interim orders is confined to cases of arbitrariness, capriciousness or perversity; (ii) a registered sale deed is not conclusive proof of title where the root of title is doubted — nemo dat quod non habet: the vendor, whose title was clouded by the alleged BDA acquisition (preliminary notification dated 8.9.1991, No.LAQ (1) CR 48780-81; final notification of 1988 under the BDA Act, 1976) and allotment to the NGEF Employees House Building Society, could pass no better title, and no material showed the acquisition had lapsed or been set aside; (iii) an injunction-seeker must prove settled possession, not casual or occasional entry; tax paid receipts corroborate possession; (iv) at the interlocutory stage courts assess plausible title without deciding title — injunctions are not granted in aid of doubtful rights; (v) balance of convenience lay with respondent No.1 in settled possession, who would suffer irreparable harm. Findings neither perverse nor contrary to law; observations confined to interlocutory applications; no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2025 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2025

¶7

IN MFA No.226 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. MOHAMMED SHAHID AHMED S/O MOHAMMED SAYEED AHMED AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 14, A1-FALAH BLOSSOM RESIDENCY, HENNUR MAIN ROAD GEDDADAHALLI BENGALURU-560 043

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O LATE H.S. VENKATESH MAJOR R/AT NO.18, K.N.RAMIAH LAYOUT K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036

¶15

SRI. K.V. NAGENDRA @ DODDA NAGAPPA S/O SRI. VENKAT RAMAYA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT KRISHNAYANA PALYA KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

INDIRANAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 038

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN OS.NO.1781/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-19, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶23

IN MFA No.95 OF 2025

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

MR. MOHAMMED SHAHID AHMED S/O MOHAMMED SAYEED AHMED AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 14, A1-FALAH BLOSSOM RESIDENCY, HENNUR MAIN ROAD GEDDADAHALLI BENGALURU-560 043

¶26

…APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O LATE H.S. VENKATESH MAJOR

¶30

R/AT NO.18, K.N.RAMIAH LAYOUT

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560 036

¶35

SRI. K.V. NAGENDRA @ DODDA NAGAPPA S/O SRI. VENKAT RAMAYA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT KRISHNAYANA PALYA KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK INDIRANAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 038

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶38

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 20.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN O.S.NO.1781/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-19), ALLOWING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶39

IN MFA No.227 OF 2025

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

MR. MOHAMMED SHAHID AHMED S/O MOHAMMED SAYEED AHMED AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 14, A1-FALAH BLOSSOM RESIDENCY, HENNUR MAIN ROAD GEDDADAHALLI

¶42

BENGALURU-560 043

¶43

…APPELLANT

¶44

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

AND:

¶49

SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O LATE H.S. VENKATESH MAJOR R/AT NO.18, K.N.RAMIAH LAYOUT K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036

¶50

SRI. K.V. NAGENDRA @ DODDA NAGAPPA S/O SRI. VENKAT RAMAYA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT KRISHNAYANA PALYA KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK INDIRANAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 038

¶51

…RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶53

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 20.12.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1781/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-19), BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1, 2 AND 3 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶54

THESE MFA's HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶56

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

CAV JUDGMENT

¶59

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

¶60

These three appeals are filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter `CPC') arise from the common order dated 20^th December, 2024 passed by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-19), Bengaluru in OS No.1781/2024, whereby

¶61

the learned trial Court was pleased to reject IA No.1 filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction while simultaneously allowed I.A Nos. 2 and 3 filed by respondent no.1 thereby, restrained the appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property described in the written statement and from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

¶62

The factual matrix out of which, the present appeals emanates pertains to a portion of immovable property described as a vacant residential site bearing PID No.84-135-380 (as described in the plaint) or PID No.84-

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

65-380 (as per the written statement), situated in Benniganahalli village, now within the territorial limits of Sadanandanagar, Bengaluru. The said discrepancy in the PID no. is not merely a typographical error but, reflects the core of factual controversy regarding identification, possession and title over the subject property.

¶67

The appellant contends that, he is the absolute

¶68

and lawful owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 11.10.2023 executed by one K.V.Rmachandra alias Ramachandra who is said to have acquired the title pursuant to the final decree passed in FDP No.35/2003 which itself arose out of a partition suit in OS No.3644/1984. It is further contended that, the said sale deed was duly followed by mutation of revenue records as evidenced by the khatha extracts and payment of property tax up-to-date. These documents according to the appellant do establish his prima facie ownership and uninterrupted possession over the suit schedule property.

¶69

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

On the contrary, the Respondents No.1 Smt. Nagarathna disputes the title and possession of the

¶73

property. It is her categorical stand that the property in question was acquired by BDA pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 8.9.1991 bearing No.LAQ (1) CR 48780-81, followed by a final notification in the year 1988 issued under the BDA Act, 1976. As per her version, the acquired lands were subsequently allotted to the members of NGEF Employees House Building Society Ltd., of which her deceased husband was a member by virtue of his employment with NGEF. The respondent asserts that, she has been put in lawful possession of the site allotted to her

¶74

and continued to remain in uninterrupted possession thereof paying property taxes and other civic levies.

¶75

In view of the conflicting claims, the appellant instituted a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants therein from interfering with his alleged possession. In aid of the main relief, he filed I.A. under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC respondent no.1 in

¶76

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

turn, IAs 2 and 3 seeking temporary injunction restraining

¶79

the appellant from interfering with his possession and

¶80

alienating the property pending adjudication of the main suit.

¶81

The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and after meticulous appreciation of the document and material proceeded to reject IA. No.1 and allowed IAs 2 and 3 filed by Respondent No.1. The trial Court was persuaded by the fact that, the appellants vendor had not established title to the suit schedule property, particularly in light of the BDA acquisition proceedings. The Court observed that, although the appellant has placed reliance upon a reg. sale deed and a final decree, their exists a cloud over such title due to the acquisition and allotment made by the BDA to the NGEF employees society, thereby, negating the presumption of ownership in his favour. Further, the learned trial Court noted that, the appellant had not placed any material to rebut the acquisition

¶82

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

process or to establish that land stood de-notified or that

¶85

the BDA had relinquished its rights.

¶86

In contrast, the trial Court was of the view that, Respondent No.1 had established a prima facie case through cogent material such as tax receipts, membership records of the society and the documents indicating her possession. The learned trial Court opined that, the balance of convenience lay in favour of Respondent No.1 and greater hardship is caused to her if interim protection is not granted.

¶87

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application and allowing of respondent's application, the appellant has approached this Court contending that, the impugned order is manifestly erroneous, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit

¶88

that, the learned trial Court had failed to consider the sanctity of the reg. sale deed and he had established possession which is sufficient for grant of interim

¶89

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

protection in a suit for injunction. He would also contend

¶92

that, trial Court has erred in undertaking a mini trial at the interim stage and in rendering findings that prejudice his claim of title even before evidence is lead.

¶93

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the reasons assigned by the trial Court in allowing their applications, and rejecting the application of the appellant. As the respondents are the purchasers of the property so described in the written statement under registered documents and exercising their rights over the property, rightly the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant and allowed the IAs so filed by the respondents.

¶94

I have perused the entire records so placed on record, considered the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsel and also gave my anxious consideration to the facts of the case consideration.

¶95

11 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that,

¶99

the scope of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) circumscribed by the principle that, appellant's interference with the discretionary orders passed by the trial Court is limited. it is well settled that, an appellate court will not lightly interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court unless it is shown to be arbitrary, capricious vitiated by perversity. The appellate jurisdiction does not permit substitution of discretion, it merely corrects abuse thereof.

¶100

In determining whether a temporary injunction

¶101

ought to have been abused or rejected, three-fold tests, parties seeking injunction must demonstrate i) a prima facie case, ii) balance of convenience in its favour iii) irreparable injury that would result in the absence of injunction. These factors are interrelated and must be considered holistically.

¶102

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

On the touchstone of the aforementioned tests,

¶105

this Court finds no error in the impugned order. The appellants sale deed though registered does not operate as conclusive proof of title in a situation where the root of the title itself is seriously questioned. A sale deed only conveys such title, right and interest as the vendor possesses. Nemo dat quod Non Habit - "no one can give what they do not have", is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule that states that a seller cannot transfer a better title to a buyer than the seller possess. In simple terms you cannot give away something you do not own. If the vendor had no title due to the earlier acquisition of the land by the State agency, then the appellant cannot claim any better title than his vendor. Though the appellant relied upon the final decree proceedings in FDP No.35/2003, but, it is a misplaced in view of respondents' assertion that the decree was a collusive compromise and more significantly and land had vested to State through acquisition. I also find that, there is no material placed by

¶106

13 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

the appellant to establish that acquisition has lapsed or was set aside. In absence of such a showing, the appellant's title is prima facie questionable.

¶110

On the aspect of possession, this Court is also mindful that, the plaintiff in a suit for injunction must establish settled possession. A casual or occasional entry does not constitute possession in the eyes of law. Possession (Possessio, quasi, Pedis positio) is twofold, actual, and in Law: The first is, when a Man actually enters into Lands or Tenements to him descended; the other, when Lands or Tenements are descended to a Man, and he hath not as yet actually entered into them. Possessio pedis is a Latin term that refers to a foothold or actual possession of real property, implying either actual occupancy or enclosure or use.

¶111

The documents produced by the respondent

¶112

prima facie indicate that, she was in settled possession. A tax paid receipt although not definite proof of title, serve

¶113

14 -

¶114

NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

as corroborative evidence of possession especially when

¶117

other material like allotment by a registered Society formed for benefit of employees. The appellant's argument that, the trial Court had undertaken a premature adjudication on title is devoid of merit. It is now well settled that, while Courts do not decide title in interim matters, they are duty-bound to assess whether a party seeking injunction has a plausible title or not. "Injunctions are not granted in aid of doubtful rights" that means, Courts are hesitant to grant injunctions (court orders to stop or compel an action) when the legal right being asserted is unclear or uncertain. While a full trial is needed to definitively determine the rights of the parties, courts must undertake a preliminary assessment of the rights to decide whether an injunction is warranted. This assessment is limited and focuses on whether the plaintiff has presented a prima facie case, meaning a case that, if the evidence were believed, would be sufficient to establish the right.

¶118

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

So far as balance of convenience is concerned,

¶121

it squarely lies in favour of respondent no.1 who stands to suffer irreparable harm if the appellant is permitted to interfere or alienate the suit schedule property. It is trite law that, where equities are evenly balanced, the party in possession is entitled to protection. No man ought to gain advantage from his own wrong - aptly applies to the facts and circumstances of this case since the appellant seeks to disturb the existing possession based on a doubtful title.

¶122

In light of the foregoing discussion, I find that there is no merit in all these appeals. The learned trial Court has exercised its discretion in a sound and judicious manner keeping in view the legal principles governing interim injunctions.

¶123

The findings are neither perverse nor contrary to law and therefore, do not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. Resultantly, the following:

¶124

16 -

¶125

NC: 2025:KHC:27555 MFA No. 226 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 95 of 2025 MFA No. 227 of 2025

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

ORDER

¶128

(i) The M.F.A.Nos.226/2025, 95/2025 and 227/2025 stand dismissed .

¶129

(ii) Impugned common order dated 20.12.2024 passed in OS No.1781/2024

¶130

by the VII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.19), Bengaluru, is hereby affirmed.

¶131

(iii) The pending IAs if any filed before this Court, stand disposed of.

¶132

The observations made herein are confined to the

¶133

adjudication of interlocutory applications and shall not influence the merits of the case which shall be decided independently in accordance with law.

¶134

Under the circumstances, no orders as to costs.

¶135

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶136

SK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Mr. Mohammed Shahid Ahmed v. Smt. Nagarathna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohammed Shahid Ahmed v. Smt. Nagarathna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Krishnamurthy Vs Sri M Ramachandra

Sri C Manjunath Vs Smt Narayanamma

Smt K K Apporva @ Sathya Priyadarshini Vs Smt a P Vanaja

Beml Employees Society Township Club Vs the Commissioner

Sravan Kumar Reddy K Vs Smt. Aswatha

Sri.R.Puttaiah Vs Sri Uchith R Swamy