Allowed¶56

Mr. B N Prabhakar v. Mr K R Narayanswamy

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2026WP/835/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction; Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC; Section 151 CPC; prima facie case; lawful possession; registered sale deed; GPA; encumbrance certificate; RTC extract; Article 227 writ petition; Karnataka High Court; Sidlaghatta; partition suit OS.No.3/2015; RA.No.55/2020 dismissed 20.09.2025; restraint against interference with possession; trespass; nuisance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 08.12.2020 on IA.No.1 in OS.No.291/2020 and order dated 04.01.2021 in MA.No.23/2020 set aside; IA.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC allowed; respondent/defendant, his men, agents, contractors, servants and persons claiming under him restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit; no order as to costs.

Mr. B N Prabhakar Vs Mr K R Narayanswamy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of having acquired right over, and being in lawful possession of, the suit schedule property so as to warrant temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

The GPA dated 04.08.2020, registered sale deed dated 12.08.2020, encumbrance certificate in Form No.15 and RTC extracts produced by the plaintiff unequivocally establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff has acquired right over the suit schedule property and is in lawful possession of the same.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court that the defendant's proceedings against the plaintiff's vendor were pending have no merit, since the defendant's appeal RA.No.55/2020 against the judgment and decree in OS.No.3/2015 was dismissed on 20.09.2025.

¶47

Key takeaways

The plaintiff's possession of the suit schedule property is required to be protected during the pendency of the suit, and no harm or prejudice would be caused to the other side by granting temporary injunction.ratio¶48
If the defendant has preferred a regular second appeal against the judgment in RA.No.55/2020, the defendant's right is required to be adjudicated in that appeal; this does not stand in the way of protecting the plaintiff's possession.obiter¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Vijaykumar A. Patil J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against concurrent rejection of a temporary injunction application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in OS.No.291/2020. The trial Court (Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta) had rejected IA.No.1 on 08.12.2020 solely because the defendant's earlier partition suit OS.No.3/2015 against the plaintiff's vendor stood dismissed and his appeal RA.No.55/2020 was pending; the First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta) reiterated the same reasons and dismissed MA.No.23/2020 on 04.01.2021. The High Court held that the plaintiff, who purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 06.08.2020 (registered 12.08.2020) and produced a GPA, encumbrance certificate in Form No.15 and RTC extracts, proved a prima facie case of right and lawful possession; the pendency-based finding had no merit as RA.No.55/2020 was dismissed on 20.09.2025. Both impugned orders were set aside, IA.No.1 was allowed, and the defendant and persons claiming under him were restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession during the pendency of the suit. No order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 835 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. B N PRABHAKAR S/O B.S. NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BODAGUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK ALSO RESIDING AT NO.2375, 2^ND FLOOR, SANJEEVINI NAGAR MAIN ROAD, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 092

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VARUN J. PATIL FOR

¶12

SRI. MAHAMAD TAHIR A., ADVOCATES)

¶13

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

MR. K.R. NARAYANSWAMY, S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DEVARAMARLUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK – 562 105

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE

¶18

FOR RESPONDENT (UNREPTD))

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.8.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SIDLAGHATTA ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.291/2020 AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.12.2020 passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.291/2020 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta (for short ‘the trial Court’) and order dated 04.01.2021 passed in MA.No.23/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta (for short ‘the Appellate Court’).

¶28

Sri.Varun J. Patil, learned counsel appearing for

¶29

the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against the respondent. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction, which came to be rejected by trial Court solely on the ground that the defendant had earlier filed a suit for partition, which was dismissed and that an appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree was

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

pending for consideration. It is submitted that the said appeal filed by the defendant also came to be dismissed on 20.09.2025. It is further submitted that the order of the trial Court dated 08.12.2020 was assailed before the First Appellate Court; however, the First Appellate Court assigned the same reasons as the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is also submitted that the petitioner purchased the suit schedule property from one Smt.Munithayamma under a registered sale deed dated 06.08.2020, which was registered on 12.08.2020 and thereafter, the petitioner/ plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and all the records were mutated in his name. It is contended that none of the aspect has been considered by the trial Court and has proceeded to reject the application, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Hence, he seeks to grant temporary injunction as the defendant is regularly disturbing the peaceful possession and

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶37

Despite service of notice, there is no

¶38

representation of the respondent.

¶39

The petitioner/plaintiff filed OS.No.291/2020 seeking the relief of temporary injunction against the defendant. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff by way of trespass, creating nuisance etc. The said application was opposed by the defendant by filing a written statement to the plaint as well as objections to the said application. The trial Court, vide order dated 08.12.2020, rejected the application considering the rival contentions and recorded the finding that the defendant had instituted a suit in OS.No.3/2015

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

against the vendor of the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession, which had been dismissed. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred RA.No.55/2020 which was pending consideration. The trial Court in its dismissal order dated 08.12.2020 in OS.No.291/2020 stated that until the rights in the said appeal are decided, no temporary injunction can be granted. The Appellate Court reiterated the same reasons and dismissed the appeal.

¶43

It is to be noticed that the petitioner/plaintiff acquired the right over the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 06.08.2020, which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sidlaghatta on 12.08.2020. The plaintiff has also produced, along with a memo, a copy of GPA dated 04.08.2020, registered sale deed dated 12.08.2020, the encumbrance certificate in Form No.15, and the RTC extracts pertaining to the suit schedule property. The aforesaid documents unequivocally make it clear that the plaintiff is able to prove the prima facie case before the trial Court that the plaintiff has

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

acquired the right over the suit schedule property and is in lawful possession of the same. The finding of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that the proceedings initiated by the defendant against the vendor of the plaintiff is pending has no merit, as the appeal in RA.No.55/2020 filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree in OS.No.3/2015 has also been dismissed on 20.09.2025.

¶48

If the defendant has preferred a regular second appeal against the judgment in RA.No.55/2020, the right of the defendant is required to be adjudicated in an appeal. Be that as it may, the material on record clearly indicates that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and he has pleaded that the defendant is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In my considered view, the possession of the plaintiff is required to be protected during the pendency of the said suit and no harm or prejudice would be caused to

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the other side, if temporary injunction is granted. Hence, I

¶53

proceed to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶56

ii. The impugned order dated 08.12.2020 passed on IA.No.1 in OS.No.291/2020 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta and order dated 04.01.2021 passed in MA.No.23/2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlghatta are hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1and 2 of the CPC is hereby allowed.

¶57

iii. The respondent/defendant his men, agent, contractors, servants claiming under him are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:33000 WP No. 835 of 2021

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

of the plaintiff during the pendency of the

¶62

said suit.

¶63

No order as to costs.

¶64