Smt. Dhakshayani. C Vs Sri. Mithilesh. L. N.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 05.04.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 2/2024 IN O.S.NO.1116/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-5, PARTLY ALLOWING THE IA.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2024 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.

¶36

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

¶37

3 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:14512 MFA No. 430 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the appellant-defendant No.1 assailing the order dated 05.04.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1116/2024 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5) (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the applications-I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction came to be allowed and both parties were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property until disposal of the suit.

¶43

Brief facts :

¶44

The plaintiff instituted suit in O.S.No.1116/2024 seeking declaration that the gift deed dated 20.07.2023 between defendant Nos.1 and 2 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, declaration that the agreement of

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14512 MFA No. 430 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

sale dated 20.07.2023 between defendant Nos.1 and 2 is not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and from alienating or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit schedule properties.

¶48

Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and from alienating the property during pendency of the suit.

¶49

The defendants appeared and filed their written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff and also raised a counter claim, contending that the property claimed by them forms part of Survey No.66/1, whereas, the property claimed by the plaintiff is stated to be survey

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:14512 MFA No. 430 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

No.67 and sought injunction against the plaintiff in respect

¶54

of the counter claim schedule property.

¶55

The trial Court by the impugned order, after

¶56

considering the pleadings, and material on record, partly allowed the applications and directed the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the

¶57

appellant-defendant No.1 has preferred this petition.

¶58

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶59

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the vendor of the plaintiff, namely M.D.Ramakrishnaiah had earlier filed O.S.No.6534/2011 challenging the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.5442/2009, which came to be dismissed. In view of the said proceedings, the plaintiff cannot now indirectly question the compromise decree or the subsequent transaction. The plaintiff has failed to establish the

¶60

6 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:14512 MFA No. 430 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

prima-facie possession over the suit schedule property and that the properties claimed by the plaintiff and defendants are distinct and situated in different survey numbers and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have granted an order of status-quo . It is therefore contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

¶64

This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶65

The trial Court, while considering the application for temporary injunction, has observed that both parties relies separate title documents and serious disputes exist with regard to identity of the property and the source of title. The trial Court further observed that such disputed questions of fact require full fledged trial and appreciation of evidence.

¶66

The trial Court further observed that in view of competing claims of title and possession of both parties, it

¶67

7 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:14512 MFA No. 430 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

would be appropriate to preserve the property and maintain the existing possession until the rights of the parties are finally adjudicated in the suit.

¶71

It is well settled law that while exercising jurisdiction in appeal under order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC, the appellate Court would interfere with the order granting or refusing injunction only when the order suffers from perversity, arbitrariness or material irregularity.

¶72

In the present case, the impugned order merely directs the parties to maintain status-quo , which is intended to safeguard the subject matter of the suit pending adjudication.

¶73

On perusal of the impugned order, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:14512 MFA No. 430 of 2026

¶75