Dismissed¶82

Mr.L.Vijaykumar v. Mrs.N.S.Geetha

Interim injunction – possession follows title

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2025MFA/2850/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC; Section 151 CPC; possession follows title; electricity receipts/bill originated after filing of suit (December 2023); shed put up after suit; priority of title — plaintiff's sale deed 21.01.1999 vs defendant Nos.7 and 8's sale deed 09.12.2022; O.S.No.26542/2023; 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75); MFA dismissed; High Court of Karnataka; Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar; NC: 2025:KHC:50583.

What did the court decide?

No relief to appellants (defendant Nos.7 and 8): both MFAs dismissed; trial Court's temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff left undisturbed; pending I.As., if any, stand closed. ¶82

Mr.L.Vijaykumar Vs Mrs.N.S.Geetha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to appellants (defendant Nos.7 and 8): both MFAs dismissed; trial Court's temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff left undisturbed; pending I.As., if any, stand closed.

¶82

Issue for consideration

When both the plaintiff and defendant Nos.7 and 8 assert title through sale deeds, whose sale deed is prior in time, and is the plaintiff thereby entitled to temporary injunction? +1 more

¶81

Court's answer

The plaintiff's sale deed dated 21.01.1999 is prior to the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.7 and 8 on 09.12.2022; accordingly the trial Court was correct in granting the order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

¶82

Ratio / Principle

The electricity receipts and other documents of defendant Nos.7 and 8, which originated for the first time only after filing of the suit (first receipt December 2023), cannot be considered to show that defendant Nos.7 and 8 are in possession; likewise the shed put up by them is subsequent to filing of the suit.

¶75

Key takeaways

It is well settled law that possession follows title; therefore defendant Nos.7 and 8 cannot claim possession through the post-suit electricity receipts.ratio¶80
There is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court; both appeals of defendant Nos.7 and 8 are liable to be dismissed and were dismissed.ratio¶82
The observations made in the judgment are only a prima facie view based on the materials produced and shall not be construed as the merits involved in the suit; the trial Court shall decide the suit independently on merits based on the evidence to be adduced.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim injunction — possession follows title — Karnataka High Court (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.), 02.12.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:50583). Defendant Nos.7 and 8 filed two MFAs (MFA No.2850/2025 under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) r/w Section 151 CPC; MFA No.5041/2024 under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC) against orders of the 74th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-75) in O.S.No.26542/2023: (i) allowance of plaintiff's I.A.No.II under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC dated 18.12.2023 granting temporary injunction, and (ii) rejection of their own I.A.No.3 dated 16.07.2024. Held: electricity receipts first generated in December 2023, i.e., only after the suit was filed in November 2023, and a shed put up after filing, cannot evidence the appellants' possession; possession follows title (well settled law); the plaintiff's sale deed dated 21.01.1999 admittedly precedes the appellants' sale deed executed on 09.12.2022, so the trial Court was correct in granting the plaintiff temporary injunction. Both appeals dismissed; pending I.As. closed. All observations expressly declared prima facie only, not to be construed as merits of the suit.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2850 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5041 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶9

IN MFA No. 2850/2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR.L.VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O MR. H LAKKANNAGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO. 93/2/4, 4TH MAIN, 4TH B CROSS, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, 6TH BLOCK, KATHRIGUPPE, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶12

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. M MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE MARIYAPPA RESIDING AT NO. 5/3/2, OLD GRAMATANA AREHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶14

&APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA S, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MRS. N.S. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O MR. H.R. SUDARSHAN PRASAD, RESIDING AT NO. B 1003 CHARTERED BEVERLY HILLS

¶18

SUBRAMANYA PURA, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

MRS. CHOWDAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 Y EARS W/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA,

¶22

MR. K MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA.

¶23

MR. K. PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O LATE V. KRISHANAPPA

¶24

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 69, III CROSS, NEAR KABBALAMMA TEMPLE, AREHALLI MAIN ROAD, VADDARAPALYA SUBRAMANYA PURA POST, UTTARA HALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶25

MRS. K CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE V KRISHNAPPA, W/O MR. B. RAJANNA

¶26

KUM. BINDUSHREE R AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O MR. B RAJANNA

¶27

KUM. DIKSHITHA R, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS D/O MR. B. RAJANNA

¶28

NO.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 151/1, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, AREHALLI VILLAGE SUBRAMANYA PURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶29

&RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. H MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R7 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2025)

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN OS.NO. 26542/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-75), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶34

IN MFA NO. 5041/2024:

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

MR.L.VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O MR. H LAKKANNAGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO. 93/2/4, 4TH MAIN, 4TH B CROSS, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, 6TH BLOCK, KATHRIGUPPE, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶37

MR. M MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE MARIYAPPA RESIDING AT NO. 5/3/2, OLD GRAMATANA AREHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶38

...APPELLANTS

¶39

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH H, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R7 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 23.01.2025)

¶40

AND:

¶41

MRS. N.S. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O MR. H.R. SUDARSHAN PRASAD, RESIDING AT NO. B 1003 CHARTERED BEVERLY HILLS SUBRAMANYA PURA, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

MRS. CHOWDAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 Y EARS W/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA,

¶45

MR. K MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA.

¶46

MR. K. PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O LATE V. KRISHANAPPA

¶47

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 69, III CROSS, NEAR KABBALAMMA TEMPLE, AREHALLI MAIN ROAD, VADDARAPALYA SUBRAMANYA PURA POST, UTTARA HALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶48

MRS. K CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE V KRISHNAPPA, W/O MR. B. RAJANNA

¶49

KUM. BINDUSHREE R AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O MR. B RAJANNA

¶50

KUM. DIKSHITHA R, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS D/O MR. B. RAJANNA

¶51

NO.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 151/1, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, AREHALLI VILLAGE SUBRAMANYA PURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶52

...RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH H, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R7 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 23.01.2025)

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.16.07.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN O.S.NO.26542/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, (CCH-75), REJECTING IA NO.3 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS NO.7 AND 8 U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶57

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶59

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶60

M.F.A.No.2850/2025 is filed by defendant No.7 and 8

¶61

questioning the order passed on I.A.No.II filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.26542/2023 dated 18.12.2023 by the Court of 74^th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, whereby the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is allowed.

¶62

M.F.A.No.5041/2024 is filed questioning the order passed on I.A.No.III filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.26542/2023 dated 16.07.2024 by

¶63

the Court of 74^th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, whereby the application filed by

¶64

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

defendant Nos.7 and 8 is dismissed. Therefore, defendant

¶67

Nos.7 and 8 have filed these two appeals.

¶68

The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration to - (i)

¶69

declare that she is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 21.01.1999 executed by defendant No.1 and witnessed by defendant Nos.2 and 3; (ii) declare that the sale deed dated 09.12.2002 executed by defendant Nos.4 to 6 in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; (iii) declare that the Release deed dated 30.12.2020 in between defendant Nos.1 to 4 in respect of the suit schedule B property is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; (iv) direct defendant Nos.1 to 8 to pay damages; and other consequential reliefs of injunction.

¶70

Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant

¶71

Nos.7 and 8 submitted that defendant Nos.7 and 8 are in possession and have produced electricity receipts which are subsequent to filing of the suit by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed suit in the month of November, 2023 but

¶72

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

the origination of the electricity receipts for the first after having month of December, 2023 after filing the suit. Therefore, the question is who is possession over the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 21.01.1999 is prior to the sale deed of defendant Nos.7 and 8 which is on 09.12.2022.

¶75

It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant Nos.7 and 8 are attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff's property. The documents of electricity receipts and other documents placed by defendant Nos.7 and 8 cannot be considered to show that defendant Nos.7 and 8 are in possession since they are originated for the first time after filing of the suit.

¶76

It is submitted that defendant No.1 did not

¶77

have competency alone to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Also the plaintiff has questioned the execution of the Release deed dated 30.12.2020 in between defendant Nos.1 to 4 enabling defendant No.4 to alienate the property in favour of defendant Nos.7 & 8.

¶78

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

When these two questions are involved in the suit, they are the matter for trial before the trial Court. Though defendant Nos.7 and 8 are claiming to be in possession by putting up a shed but that is subsequent to filing of the suit. Therefore, defendant Nos.7 and 8 cannot claim possession by those electricity receipts. It is well settled law that possession follows title.

¶81

When plaintiff and defendant Nos.7 & 8 are

¶82

asserting title through sale deeds then the question is whose sale deed is prior to the others. The plaintiff's sale deed dated 21.01.1999 and the sale deed of defendant Nos.7 and 8 was executed on 09.12.2022. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no need to make interference of the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeals filed by defendant Nos.7 and 8 are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed .

¶83

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:50583 MFA No. 2850 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 5041 of 2024

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Whatever the observations made above shall

¶86

not be construed as merits involved in the suit, as they are only prima facie view based on the materials produced before the Court. Therefore, the trial Court shall decide the suit independently on merits of the suit based on the

¶87

evidence to be adduced.

¶88

Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.

¶89

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶90

¶91

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Mr.L.Vijaykumar v. Mrs.N.S.Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.L.Vijaykumar v. Mrs.N.S.Geetha

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

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Sadashiva Anchan

M/S. Eaglesight Telemedia Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Js Associates

Smt Kushalabai Kumbar Vs Union of India

Smt Rajamma Vs Sri Krishna Murthy

M/S Lisa Apparels Private Limited Vs the Deputy Director

National Highways Authority of India Mangalore Vs Smt.Gulabi Major