M/S.Santhosh Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs K.K.Nanjappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S.Santhosh Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs K.K.Nanjappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with observations: the plaintiff may carry out developmental activities over schedule 'A' property other than schedules 'B' and 'C', without affecting defendant Nos.1 and 2's right of ingress and egress and enjoyment of 'B' and 'C'; defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall not interfere with or obstruct such developmental activities.

Issue for consideration

Whether defendant Nos.1 and 2 should be restrained (temporary injunction) from obstructing and interfering with the plaintiff's developmental activities over schedule 'A' property, other than schedules 'B' and 'C' properties.

Court's answer

The ad-interim injunction prayer in I.A.No.1 of the appeal was found to be omnibus in nature as it did not specify schedule 'A', 'B' or 'C', and defendants 1 and 2 are admittedly purchasers of schedules 'B' and 'C' from defendant No.3; accordingly, the prayer was restricted by memo to schedule 'A' property only for interim protection.

Ratio / Principle

Without affecting the right of ingress and egress of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and without causing obstruction to their enjoyment of schedules 'B' and 'C', the plaintiff may carry out any developmental activities over the other extent of schedule 'A' property other than 'B' and 'C' schedule properties.

Key takeaways

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall not cause interference or obstruction to the plaintiff making use of the other extent of 'A' schedule property and carrying out developmental activities thereon, without disturbing schedules 'B' and 'C' properties.ratio¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No. 7773 of 2025 (CPC), High Court of Karnataka (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.), decided 28.10.2025 — Plaintiff-company (M/s. Santhosh Shelters Pvt. Ltd.) appealed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against rejection (order dt. 09.09.2025, Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, O.S.No.221/2025) of its temporary injunction applications I.A.Nos.2 and 5 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The suit sought restraint of defendants from interfering with schedule properties and declaration that the registered sale deed dated 27.03.2023 executed by defendant No.3 (Managing Director of the plaintiff) in favour of defendant No.2 was null and void. The ad-interim prayer in I.A.No.1 of the appeal, being omnibus (no schedule specified) and defendants 1 and 2 being admittedly purchasers of schedules 'B' and 'C' from defendant No.3, was restricted by memo to schedule 'A' property. The appeal was disposed of with observations permitting the plaintiff to carry out developmental activities over schedule 'A' other than 'B' and 'C', without affecting defendants 1 and 2's ingress/egress and enjoyment of 'B' and 'C', and directing defendant Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere with or obstruct such developmental activities.

NC: 2025:KHC:42999 MFA No. 7773 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7773 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

M/S. SANTHOSH SHELTERS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 206/2A, 6^TH CROSS, NAGAVARA PALYA, C. V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 093.

A COMPANY HAVING REGISTRATION NO U45309KA 2017 PTC 108766 REPRESENTED BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR, SMT. M. BHAGYARATHNA D/O B. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

…APPELLANT

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI. M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

K.K.NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

MRS.LALITHA.K.P AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O MR.K.K. NANAJAPPA

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SURVEY NO.121, KENCHANAKUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI, MYSORE BANGALORE MAIN ROAD, RAMANAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 109.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42999 MFA No. 7773 of 2025

HC-KAR

SRI. K. SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SON OF LATE K.THIMMARAYAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SANTHOSH SHELTERS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 206/2A, 6TH CROSS, NAGAVARA PALYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 093

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.C. RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 09.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NOS. 2 AND 5 IN O.S.NO. 221/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, REJECTING THE IA NOs.2 AND 5 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, in O.S.No.221/2025 on I.A.Nos.2 and 5 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, thereby, the applications filed for temporary injunction are rejected.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42999 MFA No. 7773 of 2025

HC-KAR

The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent

injunction praying to restrain the defendants from interfering with the schedule properties and for disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and also prayed for declaration of the registered sale deed dated 27.03.2023 executed by the defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is a company carrying out the business activities of developing the lands and formed layout on schedule ‘A’ property and carved various sites and defendant No.3 is the Managing Director of plaintiff/company. It is pleaded that the plaintiff/company has formed layout and sites on schedule ‘A’ property and one among them is schedule ‘B’ Villa plot and schedule ‘C’ property is house construction made on the schedule ‘B’ property. Therefore, schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties are part of site of schedule ‘A’ land. It is stated that defendant No.3 has sold schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties in

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42999 MFA No. 7773 of 2025

HC-KAR

favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2, but has not credited the said amount to the account of the plaintiff/company.

Now, the only grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are obstructing and interfering with the developmental activities over the schedule ‘A’ property and not allowing to enter the schedule ‘A’ property. Therefore, filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC restraining the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from causing obstruction and interference over the suit schedule ‘A’ property other than schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties.

Today, learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo stating that the prayer in I.A.No.1 filed in the appeal is restricted to schedule ‘A’ property only for interim protection. In the said I.A.No.1/2025 filed for temporary injunction the appellant/plaintiff has sought for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with the development work of the project in the suit schedule

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42999 MFA No. 7773 of 2025

HC-KAR

properties, but has not mentioned either schedule ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ property. Therefore, the said prayer made is found to be omnibus in nature, because of the fact that admittedly the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are purchasers of schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties from the defendant No.3.

Therefore, memo is filed restricting only insofar as schedule ‘A’ property is concerned for seeking protection and enable to carryout developmental activities over schedule ‘A’ property other than schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties.

For this, learned counsel for the

respondents/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the schedule ‘A’ property other than schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties. Therefore, considering this the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties as they have purchased properties through the registered sale deed and plaintiff is carrying out the developmental activities over the other

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42999 MFA No. 7773 of 2025

HC-KAR

areas of schedule ‘A’ property other than schedule ‘B’ and

‘C’ properties. Therefore, without affecting the right of ingress and egress of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 properties and without causing obstruction to the enjoyment and right of defendant Nos.1 and 2 over schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties, the plaintiff may carry out any developmental activities over other extent of suit schedule ‘A’ property other than ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall not cause interference or obstruction to plaintiff to make use of other extent of ‘A’ schedule property and to make developmental activities to the ‘A’ schedule property without disturbing and interference to schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties.

With this observation, the appeal stands disposed of .

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

DR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19