Allowed

Sri Vishweshwar Bhat v. Sri R Chiranjeevilu Naidu

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2026MFA/9312/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant No.1 appealed against a trial Court order granting the plaintiff temporary injunction restraining interference with suit property possession. The High Court held title and possession disputes require full trial, modified the injunction to a mutual status-quo on possession, alienation and encumbrance, and allowed the appeal in part.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Vishweshwar Bhat Vs Sri R Chiranjeevilu Naidu — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:22139 MFA No. 9312 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9312 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VISHWESHWAR BHAT S/O SRI. KESHAV BHAT, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.114, HAVYAKA, S-3, 3^RD FLOOR, ANUGRAHA LAYOUT, BEHIND SHANTINIKETHAN SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI R CHIRANJEEVILU NAIDU S/O LATE SRI. VARADAPPA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.357, 4^TH B CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶14

SRI. A.V. HEMARAJU S/O LATE A.V.VARADARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.221, AMRUTHUR HOBLI,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22139 MFA No. 9312 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

KUNIGAL TALUK, YADAVANNE, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 111.

¶18

SRI. T. S SUNDAR RAJ @ T.S. SUNDAR RAJU S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1756/A, GROUND FLOOR, 34^TH CROSS, SLV MEADOWS, BSK II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070.

¶19

SRI. A. ANAND S/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.10, 3^RD CROSS, NEXT TO MARAMMA TEMPLE, AREHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI, HOBLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶20

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.10, 3^RD CROSS, NEXT TO MARAMMA TEMPLE, AREHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H JAYANTH.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.24.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.6223/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-30), ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22139 MFA No. 9312 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by defendant No.1 assailing the order dated 24.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6223/2025 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30) (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the trial Court restrained the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and from creating third party rights.

¶29

Heard Sri. Ajith Kalyan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. H Jayanth, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1.

¶30

Brief facts :

¶31

The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22139 MFA No. 9312 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

schedule property and to declare the registered sale deeds dated 03.09.2018 and 28.03.2025, as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶35

Along with the suit, the plaintiff has filed application i.e., I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction. Upon consideration, the trial Court has allowed the application and granted an injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 submits that the appellant is the registered owner in settled possession and the plaintiff is a stranger with no title. It is contended that the Trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiff has established a prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not even sought

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22139 MFA No. 9312 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

possession, indicating weakness and lack of clarity. It is submitted that the injunction against the true owner in possession is contrary to the settled law and the Trial Court ignored registered document and revenue records supporting the claim of the appellant. It is submitted that the impugned order suffers from perversity, illegality and arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court.

¶40

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order and submits that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the trial Court having found that

¶41

there is a prima-facie case, being made out, has granted injunction in his favour, which warrants no interference by this Court.

¶42

This Court has carefully considered the

¶43

submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22139 MFA No. 9312 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

" Whether the impugned order of the trial

¶47

Court warrants any interference by this Court ".

¶48

It is well settled that in an appeal against an

¶49

order passed on an application seeking temporary injunction, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Court is limited to the extent of observing "whether there is a perversity, illegality or the principles governing the temporary injunction have been violated" and only under those circumstances, the Appellate Court will interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court.

¶50

In the present case, the dispute between the parties pertains to title and possession. Both of which are seriously contested. The appellant has placed reliance on the registered sale deed and the defendants have disputed the same and claim independent title. The question as to who is in actual possession and validity of rival title claims, are matters that require full fledged trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage.

¶51

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:22139 MFA No. 9312 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Thus, while the Trial Court was justified in protecting the subject matter of the suit, granting absolute injunction is not warranted. In order to balance equities and preserve the property, an order of status-quo would met the ends of justice. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in-part .

¶56

ii) The impugned order dated 24.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6223/2025 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30), is hereby modified .

¶57

iii) Both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to possession,

¶58

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:22139 MFA No. 9312 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

alienation or encumbrance pending

¶61

consideration of the suit.

¶62

iv) Any observation made herein or by the trial Court are only for the purpose of consideration of the interlocutory application and shall not influence the Trial Court in deciding the suit on its merits.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶65

PHM

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri Vishweshwar Bhat v. Sri R Chiranjeevilu Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Vishweshwar Bhat v. Sri R Chiranjeevilu Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Santosh Kumar R S Vs Mr Aditya Dhar

Sri Basavaraju Vs Mr M Vadivelu

Sri S R Arun Kumar Vs the Chief Engineer

Sri Vishweshwar Bhat Vs Sri R Chiranjeeviilu Naidu

Mariyappa Vs Shivarama @ Shivaramegowda

G M Ravi Ganesh Vs Nil