Dismissed¶¶49

Sri P S Prabhakaran v. Sri S N Mohan Kumar @ G N R Mohana

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2025MFA/8258/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), 26-11-2025, Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J — MFA No.8258/2025 u/O.43 R.1(r) CPC; temporary injunction (O.39 R.1&2 r/w S.151 CPC) refused in O.S.No.25942/2025; identity of 7,200 sq.ft. suit site uncertain vis-a-vis Sy.No.110 Hongasandra Village (4 acres 33 guntas); Supreme Court status-quo in SLP No.3064/2025 & SLP No.3843/2025; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the identity/location of the suit property (within Sy.No.110 of 4 acres 33 guntas or outside) is under question in the suit, a survey may be needed for identification, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered status quo over the 4 acres 33 guntas, the trial court acted correctly in not granting temporary injunction against the plaintiffs putting up construction. ¶¶47

Sri P S Prabhakaran Vs Sri S N Mohan Kumar @ G N R Mohana — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs' application (I.A.No.1/2025) for temporary injunction. +1 more

¶¶34

Court's answer

¶¶47

Ratio / Principle

The question on which survey number the suit property is situated is one of identity of the property, which can be decided only in the suit and not at this stage.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court; the appeal is liable to be, and is, dismissed.ratio¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No. 8258 of 2025 (CPC) — filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dt. 18.10.2025 of the LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH-73), in O.S.No.25942/2025 dismissing I.A.No.1/2025 (temporary injunction, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC). Appellants-plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule site on 12.02.2024 measuring 7,200 sq. ft.; the defendants' specific case was that the site forms part of Sy.No.110 measuring 4 acres 33 guntas, while the plaintiffs claimed it lies outside Sy.No.110 of Hongasandra Village. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the 4 acres 33 guntas in SLP No.3064/2025 and SLP No.3843/2025. Holding that the identity/situs of the suit property is in question, can be settled only in the suit (possibly by survey), and that the Supreme Court status-quo direction covers the disputed extent, the High Court held the trial court correct in refusing to restrain/enjoin construction at this stage and saw no reason to interfere. Appeal DISMISSED. Single Judge: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar; 26-11-2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49131 MFA No. 8258 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8258 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI P S PRABHAKARAN AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O. P.SUBRAMANIUM,

¶9

SMT.SHANTHA PRABHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O. P.S.PRABHAKARAN,

¶10

SMT. PRATHIMA PRABHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O. P.S.PRABHAKARAN, W/O. RAVISH TIKOO,

¶11

SMT. SWAROOP PRABHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D/O.P.S.PRABHAKARAN,

¶12

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.558/A, 15^TH CROSS, 16^TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR FREEDOM INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, HSR LAYOUT 4^TH SECTOR, BENGALURU - 560 102.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. CHANDRAPPA.T, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI S N MOHAN KUMAR @ G N R MOHANA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE G.NARAYANASWAMY, RESIDING AT 172/5-1, DOLLAR COLONY,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:49131 MFA No. 8258 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BELEKAHALLI 4^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANNERAGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶22

SRI. S. N. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE G.NARAYANASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO.208/1, 11^TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶23

SRI.S.N.BABU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE G.NARAYANASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO.858, 6^TH MAIN, KSRTC LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶24

SMT.JAMUNA,

¶25

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O.S.N.MOHAN KUMAR @ G.N.R.MOHAN, RESIDING AT 172/5-1, DOLLAR COLONY, BELEKAHALLI 4^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANNERAGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.A.SHIVARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶28

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 18.10.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.25942/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU SCCH-73, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1/2025 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49131 MFA No. 8258 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 18.10.2025 passed by the Court of LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, (CCH73), in O.S.No.25942/2025 on I.A.No.1/2025 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, thereby, the application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is dismissed.

¶35

The plaintiffs’ case in brief is that the plaintiffs

¶36

have purchased the suit schedule site on 12.02.2024 measuring totally 7,200 sq. ft. Garvebhavipalya Village, Hongasandra Dhakale, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru.

¶37

It is the specific case of the defendants that the said site is part and parcel of Sy.No.110 to the extent 4 acres 33 guntas. The plaintiffs are constructing a building on it. The observation made by the trial court while considering the application regarding land of Sy.No.110 of Hongasandra Village measuring 4 acres 33 guntas that

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49131 MFA No. 8258 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

there is an order by the Supreme Court to maintain status-quo. Though the plaintiffs are not parties in the said SLP before the trial court, but here the question is on which survey number the suit property is situated. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit property is situated outside Sy.No.110 of Hongasandra Village, but the defendants are contending that it is within the land bearing Sy.No.110 of Hongasandra Village. Therefore, identity of the property is in question, which can be done only in the suit and not at this stage.

¶41

Though the learned counsel for the

¶42

plaintiffs/appellants submitted that they will not claim equity, they may be permitted to go on with the construction, but the very question in the suit is where exactly the suit property is situated, whether, is it in the land bearing Sy.No.110 of 4 acres 33 guntas or outside 4 acres 33 guntas. Further it may be necessary to conduct the survey for identification of the property and Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3064/2025 and SLP

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49131 MFA No. 8258 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

No.3843/2025 has directed the parties to maintain status

¶46

in respect of 4 acres 33 guntas. Therefore, if at this stage, where the suit property is situated exactly is under question in the suit and 4 acres 33 guntas and the Hon’ble

¶47

Supreme Court has ordered to maintain status-quo so far as 4 acres 33 guntas, the trial court is correct in not granting the temporary injunction restraining the defendants to put up construction by the plaintiffs.

¶48