Dismissed¶84

Sri Kadaiah v. Sri Mariswamy

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2025MFA/8216/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Order 43 Rule 1(r) r/w Section 151 CPC; MFA No.8216 of 2024; O.S.No.168/2022, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Kunigal; declaration that sale deed dated 21.04.2022 is null and void; similarity of names Channamma; M.R.No.10/2010-11; RRP No.140/2015-16; RRT (A)(K) No.135/2015-16; RRT No.140/2015-16 set aside and remanded; mutation 04 acre 29 guntas; Sy.No.62 Chalamasandra village, Huliyurdurga hobli, Kunigal taluk, Tumakuru district; prima facie case; balance of convenience; irreparable loss and injury; appeal dismissed; observations not to influence suit adjudication.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the appeal was dismissed, leaving the Trial Court's order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs undisturbed. ¶84

Sri Kadaiah Vs Sri Mariswamy — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the appeal was dismissed, leaving the Trial Court's order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs undisturbed.

¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 make out a case that the plaintiffs do not have prima facie case so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? +3 more

¶53

Ratio / Principle

No illegality or perversity was found in the Trial Court's order granting an order of temporary injunction; hence there was no need to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶73

Key takeaways

Points Nos.(i) to (iv) framed for consideration were answered in the negative, and the appeal was held liable to be dismissed.ratio¶76
The entire suit turns on the similarity of names found in all the transactions (including whether defendant No.2 is the same Channamma appearing in the Tippani dated 04.03.1959).obiter¶70
The question to be considered in the Trial Court is how defendant Nos.1 and 2 acquired title over the suit schedule property.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal (CPC) under Order 43 Rule 1(r) r/w Section 151 CPC by defendant Nos.1 to 3 against the order dated 30.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC) in O.S.No.168/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, granting temporary injunction to the plaintiffs, who seek declaration that the sale deed dated 21.04.2022 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void. The title dispute turns on similarity of names (Channamma) and mutation records: the appellants claimed through M.R.No.10/2010-11, which the Assistant Commissioner set aside in RRT No.140/2015-16 with remand for fresh consideration, mutation thereafter standing in the names of Kaadegowda, Channamma and Kempamma for 04 acre 29 guntas. Finding no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's order, the High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, sole Judge) answered Points (i) to (iv) in the negative and dismissed the appeal on 24.10.2025, directing that all observations are confined to the temporary-injunction application and shall not influence adjudication of the suit on its merits.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8216 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI KADAIAH SON OF LATE DODDEERAIAH, AGED 83 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. CHANNAMMA, WIFE OF LATE RAMALINGAIAH, AGED 64 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAMALINGAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS,

¶11

ALL ARE R/O CHALAMASANDRA VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 123.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. M B CHANDRACHOODA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI MARISWAMY SON OF LATE KARICHIKKAIAH AND KEMPAMMA, AGED 42 YEARS

¶17

SMT. PARVATHAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE KARICHIKKAIA AND KEMPAMMA, AGED 63 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT. SAROJAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE KARICHIKKAIAH AND KEMPAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶21

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, WIFE OF LATE JAYARAMAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS,

¶22

PRAVEEN KUMAR, C.J, SON OF LATE JAYARAMAIAH, AGED 23 YEARS,

¶23

SONIKA.C.J, D/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH, AGED 22 YEARS,

¶24

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE R/O CHALAMASANDRA VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 123

¶25

RAGHAVENDRA, S/O LATE PADMA,

¶26

AGED 26 YEARS, R/O CHAMALAPURA DODDI VILL. DUNDANAHALLI POST, MADDUR TQ. MANDYA DIST 571428,

¶27

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7 (P); NOTIVE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.168/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, ALLOWING THE IA.NO. 1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

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.

¶35

This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.168/2022 questioning the order dated 30.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.168/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal¹ thereby, an order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶36

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶37

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

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration

¶41

that to declare the sale deed dated 21.04.2022 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void and for consequential relief of injunction.

¶42

Defendant Nos.1 and 3 have appeared through

¶43

their Advocate and filed the written statement.

¶44

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property originally vested and belonged to one Channamma and her husband, namely Kaadegowda. The said Channamma and Kaadegowda had one daughter by name Kempamma. After the death of Channamma and Kaadegowda, the daughter Kempamma succeeded to the suit schedule property by way of inheritance. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they are legal heirs of Kempamma and after the demise of Kempamma, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit schedule property and acquired the title, right and possession over the suit

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

schedule property. It is contented that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit schedule property, in this line an application is filed for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction.

¶48

Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed written statement and also filed objections to the application filed for temporary injunction contending that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Chikkegowda @ Chikkaiah, who had two sons by name Chikkanna and Kempegowda and in a partition between the time of the partition, Chikkanna was allotted 02.14.08 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.62 of Chalamasandra village and Kaadegowda was allotted 02.14.08 guntas of land in the said survey number. It is further submitted that the son of Chikkanna by name Karchikkaiah was entitled to 01.07.08 guntas of land in Sy.No.62, instead of getting khatha to the said extent of land, he got the khatha in respect of entire suit schedule property measuring 4 acre 29 guntas and as such the plaintiffs herein cannot lay claim over the

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

suit schedule property. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the said application and the Trial Court after finding that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case has granted an order of temporary injunction.

¶52

Upon hearing the arguments from both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the materials placed on record, the following points would arise for my consideration:

¶53

i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 make out a case that the plaintiffs do not have prima facie case so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

¶54

ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 make out a case that the plaintiffs do not have balance of convenience so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiffs, thus, they would not suffer any irreparable loss and injury?

¶58

iv. Whether, the order passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court?

¶59

The appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 are claiming their rights through M.R.No.10/2010-11. This mutation register is challenged before the Court of Assistant Commissioner in two separate proceedings in RRP No.140/2015-16, in which the defendants are the appellants and the plaintiffs are the opponents. The plaintiffs themselves filed another appeal before the Assistant Commissioner questioning the very same M.R.No.10/2010-11, but between the plaintiffs themselves. In RRT (A) (K) No.135/2015-16, the Assistant Commissioner has ordered for mutation of the names of the plaintiffs and accordingly mutated. The said Assistant Commissioner in other proceedings in RRT No.140/201516 has set aside the order of M.R.No.10/2010-11 and

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

remanded for fresh consideration. When M.R.No.10/201011 was set aside, the mutation was effected in the names of Kaadegowda S/o. Doddeera, Channamma and Kempamma W/o. Karchikaiah to the extent of 04 acre 29 guntas of land.

¶63

Based on this M.R.No.10/2010-11, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 on the similarity of the name of Channamma. It is the case of plaintiffs that originally the land was vested with one Channamma W/o. Chikkamakkaiah; thereafter, the said suit schedule property was devolved upon Chennamma and her husband (Kaadegowda). It is the case of plaintiffs that by taking advantage of similarity of the name and by virtue of MRH. No.27/2019-20 they had executed the sale deed, which is in question in the suit, but the effect of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was to make a fresh enquiry and take appropriate action in mutating the names, but without conducting the enquiry, the names

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

have been mutated straightway and by taking advantage of similarity of the names, such a sale deed is executed, which is the case made out by the plaintiffs.

¶67

When this being the fact, the question is to be considered in the Trial Court is how defendant Nos.1 and 2 have acquired the title over the suit schedule property. The defendants have taken contention in the written statement that the great grandfather of defendant No.3 Chikkegowda @ Chikkaiah had two sons by name Chikkanna and Kempegowda. Kempegowda son of Chikkegowda had one son by name Ramalingaiah. Ramalingaiah S/o. Kempegowda married one Channamma, the 2^nd defendant. It is shown in the cause title that the 2^nd defendant is 64 years old, but the documents produced by the learned counsel for the appellants, which is the Tippani dated 04.03.1959 shows the name of Channamma W/o. Chikkegowda. Whether defendant No.2 is the same person appearing in the Tippani dated 04.03.1959 is the

¶68

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

question to be considered. Here, the entire suit is on the similarity of names found in all the transactions.

¶71

It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that the defendants have not stated what is the relationship of defendant Nos.1 and 2 with Kaadegowda S/o. Doddeera and Channamma. Therefore, the Trial Court, upon considering all these factors found that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience and also upon the fact that the plaintiffs established that they are in possession and accordingly granted an order of temporary injunction.

¶72

When this being the facts emerged upon the materials produced before the Court, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court in granting an order of temporary injunction. Hence, there is no need to make any interference in the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer point

¶73

11 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Nos.(i) to (iv) in the Negative . Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶77

Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 2 expressed apprehension that the observations made by the Trial Court in the order may influence the Trial Court while adjudicating the suit and therefore, it is hereby made clear that whatever the observations are made either by the Trial Court or by this Court as observed shall not come in the way of the Trial Court for deciding the suit on its merits.

¶78

It is made clear that whatever the observations made either by the Trial Court or by this Court are only for the purpose of considering the application filed for temporary injunction on equitable relief. Hence, the Trial Court without getting influenced by any of the observations made by the Trial Court and by this Court shall adjudicate and receive evidence and decide the case

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:42031 MFA No. 8216 of 2024

¶80