Smt H Manjula Vs Smt D K Vinoda Kumari

SMT H MANJULA W/O K SRINIVAS MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO. 438, 1^ST FLOOR, 40^TH CROSS, VASISTA APARTMENT, 5^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA 1. SMT D K VINODA KUMARI THEJESWINI W/O LATE K SHANTHARAJU, Location: HIGH COURT OF AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI SAURVA SANDESH A S S/O LATE K SHANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶15

BOTH ARE R/AT NO. SAI SOUDHA, SSK NURSERY, 12^TH MAIN, 15^TH CROSS, 5^TH PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45691 WP No. 30740 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶19

SRI NAVEEN P S/O LATE PUTTANNA B H, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. VANITHA P D/O LATE PUTTANNA B H, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.79, 14^TH CROSS, BEAR MALAND TOWERS, G M PALYA, NEAR THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE-560078.

¶21

SRI MOHAN KUMAR P S/O LATE PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENTS NO.3, 4 & 6 ARE R/AT NO. 49, NEW NO.50, 19^TH MAIN ROAD, J P NAGAR II PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ANNEXURE-A DATED- 30-09-2025, REFUSING TO GRANT EXPARTE INTERIM ORDER IN I.A.2, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN V.O.S.NO.7040/2025 IN VACATION COURT - XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-VII) BY ALLOWING WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:45691 WP No. 30740 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents/defendants for the reason that the challenge made by the petitioner/plaintiff is with regard to non grant of temporary injunction on the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, whereby he has sought for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants. The trial court has allowed I.A.No.1 and issued notice on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, which is impugned before this Court.

¶32

Parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of brevity.

¶33

The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit against the respondents/defendants for the relief of permanent

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45691 WP No. 30740 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

injunction and other consequential reliefs, with regard to the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint. Along with the plaint, an application came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking an order of restrainment against the defendants, agents, henchmen, claiming under them from interfering over the suit schedule property.

¶37

It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff acquired the property by way of a registered partition deed dated 02.08.1999 and since the

¶38

date of the said partition has been in possession, enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner. She has constructed a house in the property for residential purpose to an extent of 300 square feet. The plaintiff has procured electricity and water connection bills and necessary documents are produced to that effect, which is also appended to this petition. It is also contented by the learned counsel that the plaintiff has let out portion of the property to a tenant for lease for a period of three

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45691 WP No. 30740 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

years from 17.01.2020 to 17.01.2023 and the remaining portion of the property is vacant and she has constructed a compound wall and installed a gate in the suit schedule property. It is further contended that defendants No.1 and

¶42

defendant No.2 had filed a suit in O.S.No.430/2020 for declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiff and other defendants. The suit is pending adjudication. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants herein do not have any manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. They are interfering with the peaceful possession to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property with ulterior

¶43

motive. The plaintiff filed complaint against the said defendants before the jurisdictional police station and the crime is registered in Crime No.123/2024 against the same defendants. In view of the interference by the defendants, the plaintiff filed the suit and also an application for grant of temporary injunction.

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:45691 WP No. 30740 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that one Smt.

¶48

Muthamma and others filed a suit in O.S.No.237/2001 on the file of the VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for declaration and injunction in respect of the

¶49

same suit property against the plaintiff, the plaintiff's father and others. Said suit came to be dismissed on 26.06.2019. The defendant Nos.3 to 6 are the legal heirs of Sri Puttanna, who are claiming the property illegally and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff has produced the electricity bill, water bill, the encumbrance certificate, FIR and the charge sheet filed against the defendants. Despite production of all these documents, the trial court has not granted the order of injunction as sought for to protect the property and the rights of the plaintiff over the property and the threat and interference caused by the defendants to illegally enter and trespass and dispossess and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:45691 WP No. 30740 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

suit schedule property. The plaintiff has also produced certain photographs which she claims to have produced before the trial Court.

¶54

I have perused the materials stated herein above including the photographs, the partition deed, lease agreement, electricity bill, water bill, which shows the name of the plaintiff and also the lease agreement. All these documents, prima-facie goes to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property by way of a partition deed and is residing in the portion of the property. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, it becomes the obligation and duty of the

¶55

trial court to look into these material documents to find out whether prima-facie case is made out by the plaintiff for grant of an order of temporary injunction. Three necessary ingredients would be, prima-facie case, balance of convenience and hardship that would be caused to the

¶56

aggrieved party. In the case on hand, plaintiff has produced documents showing how she secured the

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45691 WP No. 30740 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

ownership and came to be in possession of the property having constructed a portion of it and residing in the same. The electricity bill and water bill also discloses the name of the plaintiff, so also the lease agreement given by

¶60

the plaintiff to another person for a period of three years. Photographs also depict the compound wall and the gate to the property. On the basis of all these documents, apparently plaintiff is made out a prima-facie case, balance of convenience is in her favour. So also hardship would be caused more to the plaintiff than to the defendant in not granting an ad-interim temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants. Plaintiff has also made out a case that by issuance of notice, delay would be caused which would cause disturbance to the plaintiff warranting the grant of an adinterim order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants. Under the circumstances, the trial court having not granted the interim order, this Court deems it appropriate on the basis of these materials to

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45691 WP No. 30740 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

grant an order of temporary injunction. Accordingly, I pass the following;

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶66

(ii) An ad-interim order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner restraining the defendants, their legal heirs, servants, henchmen, persons acting on behalf of them in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff till next date of hearing before the trial Court.

¶67

(iii) As notice to the respondents are not yet served before the trial court, respondents/defendants would be at liberty to appear and contest the application in I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 on merits.

¶68