Disposed¶67

Sri M Raghu v. Sri P Muniyappa

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2025MFA/3634/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru — MFA No. 3634 of 2024 (CPC), decided 16.12.2025 by Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J. Keywords: temporary injunction; status quo; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 with Section 151 CPC; Order XLIII Rule 1(r) appeal; declaration of title; registered Will 1993; purchase 1946; agreement of sale; unregistered GPA; affidavit 04.11.1997; sale deed 05.05.1997; sale deed 12.12.2018; khatha; BBMP; vacant site; rival possession claims; prima facie case; observations confined to interim application; suit remitted to Trial Court for independent decision.

What did the court decide?

Both parties directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit schedule property as on today; appeal disposed of accordingly, with all observations confined to the interim injunction application. ¶67

Sri M Raghu Vs Sri P Muniyappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it is required to issue directions to both the parties to maintain status quo so far as possession is concerned as on today. +1 more

¶47

Court's answer

The Trial Court committed an error in observing that the plaintiff made no pleading of possession; in Paragraph No.11 of the plaint the plaintiff pleaded that he had been and is in continuous possession till today.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

Considering that both sides claim title and the aspects are to be considered at trial, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case that he has title as per the Will.

¶62

Key takeaways

It is trite law that mere agreement of sale and affidavit do not convey title.obiter¶58
Whether title can be conveyed through the unregistered GPA relied on by defendant No.2 is a question to be tried in the suit before the Trial Court (expressly left open).obiter¶58
Since the suit schedule property is a vacant site with rival claims of possession, it is just and proper to direct both parties to maintain status quo as regards possession as on today; the point is answered in the Affirmative and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC by the plaintiff against the Trial Court's order dated 03.02.2024 in O.S.No.7168/2022 dismissing his I.A.No.I (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC) seeking temporary injunction. The plaintiff claimed title through a registered Will of 1993 executed by his father, who had purchased the property in 1946, and sought declaration that the sale deed dated 12.12.2018 and GPA executed by defendant No.1 were null and void. The defendants traced title through an agreement of sale, GPA and affidavit of 1997 in favour of defendant No.1 and a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2018 in favour of defendant No.2, supported by BBMP khatha records. The High Court observed that mere agreement of sale and affidavit do not convey title and that whether title can pass through an unregistered GPA is a question to be tried in the suit; it held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of title under the Will, corrected the Trial Court's erroneous observation that the plaint lacked a possession plea (Paragraph 11 pleads continuous possession), and, the property being a vacant site with rival claims of possession, directed both parties to maintain status quo as to possession as on today and disposed of the appeal. All observations were confined to the temporary injunction application, with the Trial Court directed to decide the suit independently and expeditiously.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3634 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI.M.RAGHU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.26/1, 1^ST FLOOR, BENSON TOWN, BENSON ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 046

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. P.MUNIYAPPA AGED 71 YEARS, S/O LATE POOJAPPA,

¶15

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SRI. UDAY KUMAR. M, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE P MUNIYAPPA,

¶17

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.104, SARAIPALYA (VIDYA SAGARA), THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, DR SRK NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 077.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. K.H, THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2(NOC); SRI. HARISHA O.K, ADVOCATE FOR R1(NOC))

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.03.02.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7168/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-19), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 03.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.7168/2022 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19)¹ , thereby, the application filed seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction was dismissed.

¶28

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

For the sake of convenience and easy

¶32

reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶33

It is the case of plaintiff that he has become the

¶34

owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered Will executed by his father in the year 1993. The plaintiff’s father had purchased the said suit schedule property in the year 1946. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s father had executed the registered Will in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has become the owner and in continuous possession and in enjoyment over the suit schedule property, but defendant No.1 without having any competency and authority of law had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, who is none other than the son of defendant No.1, but basically, defendant No.1 did not have competency to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 12.12.2018 and General Power of Attorney (for short ‘the GPA’) executed by defendant No.1

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

in favour of defendant No.2 are null and void and not

¶39

binding on the plaintiff.

¶40

In the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application I.A.No.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to grant an ad-interim exparte temporary injunction restraining defendant No.2 from changing the nature/status and alienating the suit schedule property by creating third party rights, but the said application was dismissed.

¶41

It is the case of the respondents/defendants

¶42

and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants argued that the plaintiff had executed agreement of sale, GPA and an affidavit in favour of defendant No.1; therefore, on the basis of these documents, the plaintiff had transferred his right of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 05.05.1997 and sworn affidavit on 04.11.1997. Hence, when defendant No.1 had acquired the right, title

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

and interest over the suit schedule property, subsequently, the sale deed was made in favour of defendant No.2, who is the son of defendant No.1 and since then, defendants are in continuous possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, justified the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application I.A.No.I filed seeking to grant an ad-interim exparte temporary injunction.

¶46

Heard the arguments from both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, the following point would arise for my consideration:

¶47

“Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, is it required to issue directions to both the parties to maintain status-quo so far as possession is concerned as on today?”

¶48

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s

¶49

father had acquired the suit schedule property in the year 1946 and in the year 1993, the plaintiff’s father had bequeathed the suit schedule property through a

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

registered Will in favour of plaintiff; hence, it is submitted that there is no dispute regarding the Will. Thus, in this way, the plaintiff is claiming title and ownership over the suit schedule property and also stated that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and in this regard, he has produced the tax paid receipts.

¶53

It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff

¶54

had executed the registered sale deed dated 05.05.1997 through GPA and also an affidavit dated 04.11.1997, which had conveyed the title and possession in favour of defendant No.1. Then, defendant No.1 had sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 through registered sale deed dated 12.12.2018 and also khatha was changed in the name of defendant No.2. Hence, it is submitted that defendant No.2 is the owner of the suit schedule property and is in continuous possession and has produced the khatha certificate issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘the BBMP’)

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

showing the name of defendant No.2 as the owner of the suit schedule property.

¶58

When considering the above facts, the question for consideration before the Trial Court is “ whether there is valid conveyance of title in favour of defendant No.1 through GPA, agreement of sale and an affidavit ”. It is trite law that mere agreement of sale and affidavit do not convey title. Further, the GPA on which defendant No.2 is relying is unregistered GPA; hence, whether through unregistered GPA, the title can be conveyed is a question to be tried in the suit before the Trial Court, but the plaintiff at this stage has produced the sale deed that the plaintiff’s father had purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1946 and thereafter, in the year 1993, the plaintiff’s father had bequeathed the suit schedule property through Will in favour of plaintiff. Thus, in this way, both the plaintiff and defendants are claiming title.

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Considering these aspects, when the above

¶62

aspects are to be considered in the trial, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case that he has title as per the Will.

¶63

On the other hand, the said GPA on which defendant No.2 is relying, is unregistered one. Furthermore, both the plaintiff and defendants are claiming that they are in possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has produced the tax paid receipts and on the other hand, the defendants have produced the tax paid khatha receipts.

¶64

Further, the Trial Court committed error in stating that the plaintiff has not made any pleading in the plaint that defendant No.2 is in possession, but it is not correct observation made by the Trial Court that in Paragraph No.11 of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that he had been and is in continuous possession till today; therefore, the plaintiff has made an averment in

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

the plaint that he is in possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, under these circumstances, the suit schedule property is vacant site and there is a rival claim of possession; therefore, it is just and proper to direct both the parties to maintain status-quo so far as possession is concerned as on today accordingly, I answer point in the Affirmative. Thus, the appeal is liable to be disposed oFf by directing both the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession over the suit schedule property as on today.

¶68

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off .

¶69

Whatever the observations made above are

¶70

only for the purpose of considering the application of temporary injunction and shall not be considered as discussions and merits involved in the case; hence, the Trial Court is directed to consider the suit in accordance with law after receiving the evidence from both the sides

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:53589 MFA No. 3634 of 2024

¶72

10 -

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

independently without being influenced by any of the observations made above as expeditious as possible.

¶75

SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶76

SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sri M Raghu v. Sri P Muniyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Raghu v. Sri P Muniyappa

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

Smt. J. Ashwini Vs Sri. K. Manjunatha Reddy

Miss Jyothi Vs Union of India

M/S. Markon Developers Vs Smt. S. G. Shruthi

Smt. Channaveeramma Vs Union of India

Sri a C Ramakrishnappa Vs Smt Puttalingamma

Sri R Puneeth Reddy Vs Sri C Raghu Reddy