Smt Mumina Charles Vs Sri N Prabhu Kumar

SRI N PRABHU KUMAR S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO 10, PODU VILLAGE HULIMANGALA POST JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT 562106

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. V. VISWANATH SETTY., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 28.08.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN RA NO.5020/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL, ALLOWING IA NO. 4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:14039 MFA No. 8755 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶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

The Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by defendants Nos.4 and 6 in OS No.827 of 2008 filed by respondent before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (hereinafter referred to as “ Trial Court ” for short) for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule ‘B’ property bearing Sy.No.31/1 measuring 8 3/4 guntas out of 1 acres 4 guntas, which is a portion of ‘A’ schedule property situated at S Bingipura (Podu Village), Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk (described as “ scheduled property” for short).

¶26

Aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the III Additional District Sessions Judge at Anekal (hereinafter referred to a “ Appellate Court” for short) on IA No.4 filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:14039 MFA No. 8755 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in RA No.5020 of 2024, whereby the application came to be allowed, the appellants are before this Court.

¶31

Pursuant to the summons issued by the trial Court, the defendants appeared and filed written statement. The trail Court, considering the pleading, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2024. The respondent/plaintiff filed Regular Appeal in R.A.No.7 of 2024, which was subsequently transferred and renumbered as R.A.No.5020 of 2024. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 4 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order restraining the defendants/appellants from obtaining a Tatkhal Podi Survey from the Survey Authorities at Anekal in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶32

By the impugned order, the First Appellate Court allowed the said application and restrained the appellants

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:14039 MFA No. 8755 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

from conducting the Tatkhal Podi Survey. Aggrieved by the

¶37

said order, the present Appeal is filed.

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent and perused the material on record.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had earlier filed an application before the Assistant Director of land Records (ADLR) on 12.07.2024 seeking conduct of Tatkhal Phodi Survey in respect of the property. The respondent/plaintiff appeared before the authority and filed objections. Thereafter, the ADLR by order dated 25.07.2025 directed conduct of survey. It is contended that the said order passed by the ADLR has attained finality and has not been challenged by the respondent. It is therefore contended that the plaintiff having suffered dismissal of the suit before the trial Court, cannot seek to restrain the appellants from conducting survey proceedings which has been permitted by the competent authority.

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14039 MFA No. 8755 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the order passed by the First appellate Court. It is contended that the identity of the property claimed by the appellants is yet to be properly established and during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants attempted to take advantage of dismissal of the suit by initiating Tatkhal Phodi Survey proceedings. It is therefore contended that the First appellate Court has rightly granted an order of injunction restraining the appellants from proceeding with survey.

¶43

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶44

It is not in dispute that suit filed by the plaintiff in OS No.827/2008 seeking declaration and permanent injunction came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent has preferred R.A.No.5020/2024, which is presently pending consideration before the First Appellate Court. It is also not in dispute that the appellants have

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14039 MFA No. 8755 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

approached the ADLR seeking conduct of Tatkhal Phodi Survey in respect of the property in question. The said order has not been challenged by the respondent and has attained finality.

¶48

It is well settled that conduct of survey or demarcation by the revenue authority does not determined title or possession of the parties and such proceedings are always subject to final adjudication of the rights of the parties in the appropriate civil proceedings. The First Appellate Court was not justified in granting an absolute injunction restraining the appellants from conducting Tatkhal Phodi Survey. However, it is necessary to safe guard the interest of the respondent as dispute regarding title and possession is pending adjudication in the appeal, therefore, the conduct of Tatkhal Phodi Survey

¶49

shall remain subject to final out come of the civil proceedings. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14039 MFA No. 8755 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The MFA is hereby disposed of.

¶54

ii. The impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the III Additional District Sessions Judge at Anekal on IA No.4 is modified .

¶55

iii. It is clarified that the Tatkhal Phodi Survey in respect of the suit schedule ‘B’ property shall be subject to final out come of the civil proceedings pending between the parties.

¶56

iv. It is needless to observe that the First Appellate Court shall dispose of regular appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶59

SR

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Smt Mumina Charles v. Sri N Prabhu Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mumina Charles v. Sri N Prabhu Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vishwanath Abbaiah Vs Sri Ramakrishna Reddy

Mr. Raghavendra K Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec)

Smt. B.A. Bhagirathamma Vs Smt. K.M. Mythri

Venkataramanappa Vs Sri Govindaraju

Smt. a. Rajeshwari Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Jayamma Vs Smt Manjula