Krishna Moolya v. Sadashiv Bhat

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2026MFA/8505/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Krishna Moolya v. Sadashiv Bhat and State of Karnataka; MFA No.8505 of 2024 (CPC); NC: 2026:KHC:16027; High Court of Karnataka; temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC; Order 43 Rule 1(r); Order XXI Rule 97 CPC; obstruction of execution; abuse of process; prima facie case; balance of convenience; Survey No.91/6 versus decree schedule Survey Nos.91/5, 91/4, 91/3 and 83; Government A.W. land; Sullia, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada; decree-holder possession through execution; W.P. No.17769/2023; appeal dismissed, Trial Court order confirmed.

What did the court decide?

None; the miscellaneous first appeal was dismissed and the Trial Court's order dated 22.10.2024 on I.A. No.III in O.S. No.55/2023 was confirmed. ¶ORDER-i

Krishna Moolya Vs Sadashiv Bhat — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the miscellaneous first appeal was dismissed and the Trial Court's order dated 22.10.2024 on I.A. No.III in O.S. No.55/2023 was confirmed.

¶ORDER-i

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff/appellant made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction over Survey No.91/6 on the basis of title or possession. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The appellant's earlier admission in the written statement in O.S. No.13/2001 — that he was under the impression the house was situated in Sy. No.91/6, subsequently found adjacent to Government land — and the absence of any categorical assertion of possession over Sy.91/6 or consistent plea of independent possession, go against the present contention of settled possession over Survey No.91/6.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The execution-proceedings finding that the claim relates to Survey No.91/6, which does not form part of the decree schedule, does not establish possession or title in favour of the appellant; it only shows such claim cannot be adjudicated in execution proceedings, as held in W.P. No.17769/2023.

¶10

Key takeaways

By the present suit the appellant seeks to revive and reintroduce the claim already considered and rejected in execution proceedings, but has produced no cogent material establishing lawful possession over Survey No.91/6 or independent right, title or interest therein; the earlier admission and conduct indicate the claim is not bona fide.ratio¶11
The sequence of suffering a decree, failing in appellate proceedings, obstructing execution, the wife's initiation of Order XXI Rule 97 proceedings, and the present suit filed indirectly to prevent execution amounts to abuse of process, disentitling the appellant from any equitable relief.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No.8505 of 2024 (CPC), decided 18.03.2026 (K.S. Hemalekha, J.): Plaintiff-appellant Krishna Moolya challenged the Trial Court's order dated 22.10.2024 dismissing his temporary-injunction application (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC) in O.S. No.55/2023 concerning Survey No.91/6, claimed as Government A.W. land in his settled possession and asserted by his counsel to lie outside the decree schedule of O.S. No.13/2001 (said to pertain only to Survey Nos.91/5, 91/4, 91/3 and 83), under which respondent-decree-holder Sadashiv Bhat had obtained possession through execution. The High Court weighed the appellant's earlier written-statement admission in O.S. No.13/2001 (house believed to be in Sy. No.91/6 but found adjacent to Government land) and absence of any categorical assertion of independent possession; the rejection of his wife Sharada's Order XXI Rule 97 application in execution, where the finding that Sy. No.91/6 falls outside the decree schedule conferred neither possession nor title (claim not adjudicable in execution, as held in W.P. No.17769/2023); and the absence of cogent material proving possession, right, title or interest. Holding the suit an indirect attempt to prevent execution, amounting to abuse of process, and that an injunction would defeat a valid decree while refusal would prejudice no one, the Court found no prima facie case on title or possession, upheld the Trial Court's judicially exercised discretion, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the impugned order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16027 MFA No. 8505 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8505 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KRISHNA MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O BADA MOOLYA, PAIRUPUNI HOUSE, PADUVANNOOR VILLAGE, SULLIA, PADAVU P.O., PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574239.

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SADASHIV BHAT AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O RAMA BHAT, R/AT PAIRUPUNI, PADUVANNOOR VILLAGE SULLIA PADAVU PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574239.

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT-575001.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI VACHAN H.U., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA FOR R-2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16027 MFA No. 8505 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.55/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, PUTTUR D.K., DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the plaintiff calling in question the order dated 22.10.2024 passed on I.A. No.III in O.S. No.55/2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be dismissed.

¶26

The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S. No.55/2023 seeking declaration of possession, title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of ‘X’ schedule properties claimed to be a Government A.W. land bearing Survey No.91/6. It is the case of the plaintiff that

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16027 MFA No. 8505 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

he is in settled possession of the said property for several

¶30

decades and the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 is attempting to interfere with such possession under the guise of executing a decree passed in O.S. No.13/2001.

¶31

Defendant No.1, on the other hand, contended

¶32

that he had earlier filed suit O.S. No.13/2001 for possession, which came to be decreed and confirmed in appellate proceedings and that the decree has been executed and possession has been delivered in accordance with law. It is stated that the present suit is a device to obstruct execution and to re-agitate issues that have already attained finality.

¶33

Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.III

¶34

seeking temporary injunction against the defendants.

¶35

The Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, has held that:

¶36

i. The plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie

¶37

case.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16027 MFA No. 8505 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ii. The identity of the property claimed by the

¶41

plaintiff is not distinct from the O.S. No.13/2001 schedule

¶42

property.

¶43

iii. The plaintiff has taken inconsistent stand in the

¶44

earlier proceedings.

¶45

iv. The execution of the decree has already been completed and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendant.

¶46

Accordingly, the application for temporary injunction was dismissed.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the suit property bearing Survey No.91/6 is distinct from the decree schedule property in O.S. No.13/2001. The decree pertains only to Survey No.91/5, 91/4, 91/3 and 83 and not to Survey No.91/6. It is contended that the plaintiff is in settled possession of Survey No.91/6 and such possession requires protection. It is contended that

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16027 MFA No. 8505 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree and that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case warranting grant of injunction.

¶51

7 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

¶52

submits that the appellant is attempting to re-agitate issues that have already been concluded, after suffering a decree. In the earlier suit in O.S. No.13/2001, the appellant himself had stated in his written statement that he was under the impression that the house was situated in Survey No.91/6. But, later it was found to be adjacent to government land. The appellant never asserted possession over Survey No.91/6 with certainty. The decree has attained finality and has been executed through due process of law. It is submitted that in the execution proceedings, the wife of the appellant (Sharada) had filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 claiming right over Survey No.91/6 and the same was rejected holding that Survey No.91/6 does not form part of the decree and the

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:16027 MFA No. 8505 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

present suit is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of

¶56

Court to obstruct the lawful execution.

¶57

This Court has carefully considered the

¶58

contentions urged and perused the material on record.

¶59

A crucial aspect that cannot be lost sight is the stand taken by the appellant in the written statement filed in O.S. No.13/2001. The appellant had stated that he was under the impression that the house was situated in Sy. No.91/6, however, it was subsequently found to be situated adjacent to Government land. Significantly, there was no categorical assertion of possession over Sy.91/6, nor any consistent plea establishing independent possession. This admission goes against the present contention of the settled possession over Survey No.91/6.

¶60

In the execution proceedings, the wife of the appellant, namely Sharada, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC asserting a right over Survey No.91/6. The Executing Court, as well as in the

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:16027 MFA No. 8505 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

subsequent proceedings, has clearly held that the claim relates to Survey No.91/6 and that the said property does not form part of the decree schedule. However, such a finding does not establish either possession or title in favour of the appellant. It only indicates that such claim cannot be adjudicated in execution proceedings, as held in W.P. No.17769/2023.

¶64

The appellant by filing the present suit is seeking to revive and reintroduce the same claim, which has already been considered and rejected in execution proceedings. The appellant has failed to produce any cogent material to establish his lawful possession over Survey No.91/6 or any independent right, title or interest therein. On the contrary, the earlier admission and conduct in the execution proceedings clearly indicate that the claim is not bonafide .

¶65

The sequence of events demonstrates that the appellant suffered a decree, failed in the appellate

¶66

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:16027 MFA No. 8505 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

proceedings, and thereafter obstructed execution and his wife initiated proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and now the present suit has been filed indirectly to prevent execution. Such conduct amounts to an abuse of the process, thereby disentitling the appellant from any equitable relief. The respondent is a decree holder who had obtained possession through process of law. Granting an injunction would defeat a valid decree, whereas refusal of an injunction would not cause any legal prejudice to the appellant, who has failed to prima facie establish lawful possession.

¶69

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff/appellant has not made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction either on basis of title or possession. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the material on record and exercised its discretion judicially, warranting no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:16027 MFA No. 8505 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORDER

i. The miscellaneous first appeal stands dismissed .

¶75

ii. The order dated 22.10.2024 passed on I.A. No.III in O.S. No.55/2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur stands confirmed .

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶78

MBM

¶79

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Krishna Moolya v. Sadashiv Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Moolya v. Sadashiv Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nalini Sushma M S Vs Mohammed Khadir Ur Rahman

Puttamma Vs Anna Bovi Dead by Lrs

M Rajashekar Vs the Commissioner

Sri Prabhakar Reddy Vs Smt Muniyallamma

Sri T S Mahadevaiah Vs Sri Bolashivanegowda

Mr. Johnson Bruno D'Souza Vs Mr. Sathyabhushan