Smt Anandi P Vs Sri Suman

SRI SUMAN S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 85, MARIAMMAN TEMPLE STREET, DEVARJEVANHALLI, PERIYARNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶12

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. BABU S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO. 20, MARIAMMAN TEMPLE STREET, DEVARJEVANHALLI, PERIYARNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶14

SRI. SARVANA S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17, MARIAMMAN TEMPLE STREET, DEVARJEVANHALLI, PERIYARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 045.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49132 MFA No. 4013 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

(V/O DATED 03.11.2025, NOTICE TO R1, R2, R3 IS H/S)

¶19

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.04.03.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.3760/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH NO.3), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 04.03.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.3760/2023 by the Court of XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH No.3), thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed.

¶24

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which is gifted by her husband through registered gift deed on 06.11.2006. Therefore, by virtue of gift deed executed by her husband the plaintiff is

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49132 MFA No. 4013 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

in possession over suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is measuring 1200 sq. ft.

¶28

It is the pleadings of the plaintiff that the defendants are causing interference with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the property by saying that the plaintiff entered the public road by constructing the compound wall.

¶29

The trial Court has dismissed the application on the reason that the plaintiff has not produced the sale deed executed on 13.02.1991 by one Sri Kathavarayan in favour of husband of plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court has formed opinion that to ascertain the extent of suit schedule property, the said sale deed dated 13.02.1991 is necessary. But the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has produced the sale deed dated 13.02.1991, but without considering the same, the trial Court has dismissed the application.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:49132 MFA No. 4013 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The only grievance of the defendant is that the plaintiff is entering the public road. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff is not constructing any compound wall, but prays to protect her possession over the suit schedule property as it was gifted by her husband. Therefore, the plaintiff has shown prima facie case and balance of convenience to show that the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of gift deed executed by her husband. Therefore, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then there would be chances of interference by the defendant, in which, the plaintiff would suffer loss and injury. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶34

6. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The appeal is allowed .

¶37

(ii) The order dated 04.03.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.3760/2023 by the Court of XV

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49132 MFA No. 4013 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH No.3), is hereby set aside.

¶41

(iii) The plaintiff and defendants are directed to maintain status-quo insofar as possession over the suit schedule property as on today and also the defendants shall not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as per the sale deed dated 13.02.1991.

¶42