Sri M Muddanna Vs Dr. M Shashibhushan — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri M Muddanna Vs Dr. M Shashibhushan — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed with observations: temporary injunction continued qua suit schedule 'B' property; question of injunction qua the lift remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration upon production/consideration of the lease deed dated 01.11.2011; appellants/defendants directed not to cause nuisance in the use of the lift by appellant/defendant No.2 and customers; Trial Court to decide the lift question expeditiously with cooperation of both parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 04.07.2025 granting temporary injunction on I.A.No.1/2024 could properly stand when the lease deed dated 01.11.2011, said to underlie installation of the lift on appellant/defendant No.2's property, was admittedly not produced before the Trial Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the lease deed dated 01.11.2011 bearing on the lift was admittedly not produced in the suit, the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law after considering the lease deed to be produced before it while deciding I.A.No.1/2024, and the Trial Court shall take appropriate decision so far as the lift is concerned.

Ratio / Principle

The order of temporary injunction is continued so far as suit schedule 'B' property is concerned.

Key takeaways

Until fresh decision on the lift question, the appellants/defendants shall not cause nuisance in the use of the lift by appellant/defendant No.2 as well as its customers.ratio¶41
The Trial Court shall consider the application for temporary injunction once again so far as the lift is concerned, as expeditiously as possible, with both parties cooperating.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (NC: 2025:KHC:52153), Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7430 of 2025 (CPC) under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, decided 09.12.2025 by Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J. Defendants appealed against the order dated 04.07.2025 of the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-29), allowing I.A.No.1/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC and granting temporary injunction in O.S.No.25240/2024, a suit for permanent injunction restraining interference with suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties including the lift. During arguments, respondent/plaintiff contended that though the lift stands on appellant/defendant No.2's property, it is by virtue of a lease deed dated 01.11.2011; the appellants disputed this, and the lease deed was admittedly not produced before the Trial Court. Held, disposing the appeal: the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law after considering the lease deed while deciding I.A.No.1/2024, with an appropriate decision to be taken on the lift; the temporary injunction is continued qua suit schedule 'B' property; meanwhile the appellants/defendants shall not cause nuisance in the use of the lift by appellant/defendant No.2 and its customers; and the Trial Court shall reconsider the temporary-injunction application qua the lift as expeditiously as possible with both parties cooperating.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:52153 MFA No. 7430 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7430 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M.MUDDANNA S/O LATE R MASTHI VEERANNA AGE ABOUT 83 YEARS R/A NO 483 14^TH ‘B’ CROSS, WCR MALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 086

SRI. CHANDRA SHEKHAR S/O LATE R MASTHI VEERANNA AGE ABOUT 76 YEARS R/A NO 53 DAKSHINESWAR, 10^TH MAIN, 1^ST STAGE, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. M.SOMASHEKHAR S/O LATE R MASTHI VEERNNA AGE ABOUT 73 YEARS R/A NO 53 DAKSHINESWAR, 10^TH MAIN, 1^ST STAGE, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098

SRI. SUDHIR MUDDANNA S/O M.MUDDANNA AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO 483 14^TH ‘B’ CROSS, WCR MALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 086

…APPELLANTS

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:52153 MFA No. 7430 of 2025

HC-KAR

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS S.V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DR. M.SHASHIBHUSHAN S/O LATE R MASTHI VEERANNA AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A NO 2127/8 ‘RAM’, ‘D’ BLOCK, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, CQAL LAYOUT, SAHAKARNAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K.M. JAGANATH, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 04.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 25240/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-29), ALLOWING IA NO. 1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with

consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

This appeal is filed by the defendants questioning the order dated 04.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.1/2024 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52153 MFA No. 7430 of 2025

HC-KAR

with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.25240/2024 on the file of XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH29), Mayohall, Bengaluru¹ , thereby, the application I.A.No.1/2024 was allowed and an order of temporary injunction granted against the defendants.

The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent

injunction against all the defendants praying to restrain the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties including the lift therein.

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that though the lift is installed on the property of the appellant/defendant No.2, it is by virtue of the agreement in the lease deed dated 01.11.2011, but it is disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2.

Admittedly, this lease deed is not produced in

the suit before the Trial Court. Upon considering the

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

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52153 MFA No. 7430 of 2025

HC-KAR

application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction, hence the matter is required to be remanded to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law after considering the lease deed to be produced before the Trial Court while considering the application I.A.No.1/2024 and the Trial Court shall take appropriate decision so far as the lift is concerned.

The order of temporary injunction, so far as suit schedule 'B' property is continued.

appellants/defendants shall not cause nuisance in using the lift whenever it is used by the appellant/defendant No.2 as well as customers.

With these observations, the appeal is

disposed off .

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:52153 MFA No. 7430 of 2025

HC-KAR

9. The Trial Court shall consider the application

filed seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction once again so far as the lift is concerned as expeditious as possible. For which, both the parties shall cooperate.

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

JUDGE

SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51