Karnataka High Court
Suresh Nanwani vs Santhosh Raj Urs on 2 May, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18074
MFA No. 1580 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1580 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SURESH NANWANI
S/O. LATE, GOPAL DA NANWANI,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/A. HUNASAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA-2 HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
AT NO.9, 2ND FLOOR, BEL AIR DRIVE,
MEKHRI CIRCLE, BELLARY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
REP BY SPA HOLDER ANOOP VANJANI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. VANDANA P.L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. SANTHOSH RAJ URS
PAVITHRA B
S/O. SAROJA R.
Location:
HIGH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
COURT OF R/A. NO.318, ARASU MANSION,
KARNATAKA
SECOND FLOOR, 12 A MAIN,
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
2. SMT. PRARTHANA A.G
D/O. S.S. GURUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/A. NO.690/91,
BB GARDEN ROAD,
AGRAHARA, MYSORE - 570 004.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18074
MFA No. 1580 of 2025
3. SRI. SAINATH NAGURE.
S/O. ANNEPPA NAGURE,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/A. FLAT NO. FALGUNI 601,
OLETY LANDMARK APARTMENT,
NO.23, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
SHANKARAMUTT,
VAIYALIKAVAL LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. MANU. K, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEAT RESPONDENT
NO.1 TO 3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.
1 IN O.S.NO. 54/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE I.A.
NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The defendant (appellant herein) in O.S.No.54/2025 has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 18.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under -3- NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.54/2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short) thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is allowed restraining the defendant or anybody acting or claiming through him from causing obstruction or interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land.
3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
4. It is the case of the plaintiffs/respondents that they have jointly purchased the suit schedule land from previous owners through a registered sale deed dated 25.11.2024. The land bearing Sy.No.155/1 was totally measuring 05 acre 04 guntas. Out of total extent, the suit schedule land was re-granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru in case -4- NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 No.79/1959-60 on 31.07.1962 to Sri Appa Shetty who was the father and grandfather of vendors of the plaintiffs. Similarly, remaining 04 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1 of Hunasamaranahalli Village were re-granted to Sri Jayaramaiah S/o Munivenkatappa. Therefore, from the date of re-grant of the land, the vendors of the plaintiffs were in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land.
5. Sri Jayaramaiah and his brother Sri Ramanna have partitioned their 04 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1, including the suit land and got their names mutated to the entire extent of 05 acre 04 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1. The plaintiffs pleaded that the inclusion of 00-30 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1 is illegal. Thereafter, Sri Jayaramaiah and his brother Sri Ramanna sold the entire extent of land 05 acre 04 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 to Smt Kamani R. Ramnani. In turn, Smt Kamani R. Ramnani sold the said land in favour of Smt Asha Pardeshi W/o Ramesh Pardeshi, who is the sister of defendant. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 Subsequently, Smt Asha Pardeshi W/o Ramesh Pardeshi gifted the entire land of 05 acre 04 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1 including the suit land of 00-30 guntas to the defendant.
6. Therefore, the plaintiffs approached the Assistant Commissioner, North Division, Bengaluru in appeal RA (YLK) No.402/2022, challenging the revenue entries and seeking a change of katha of 00-30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1. The appeal was allowed and it was stated that subsequent to the survey and haddu bastu, a new Sy.No.151/3 is assigned. Subsequently, the vendors of the plaintiffs were in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land and subsequent to the purchase through registered sale deed dated 25.11.2024, the plaintiffs are in actual possession of the suit land of 00-30 guntas.
7. The defendants, without having any claim, right or interest over the suit schedule land have illegally interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, -6- NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
8. It is the case of the defendant that the total extent of land in Sy.No.155/1 is 05 acre 04 guntas. The defendant admitted that 04 acre 10 guntas were re- granted to the Sri Jayaramaiah and 00-30 guntas of land were re-granted to Sri Appa Shetty. The defendant also admitted that Sri H.V. Lakshminarayana Shetty and his family members have executed registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. It is the case of the defendant that at the time of grant, survey settlement was not introduced to Hunasamarahalli Village lands and therefore, the survey numbers and extent were mentioned tentatively and approximately. After introduction of survey settlement, a correlation report was prepared pertaining to survey No.155/1 with specific extent. As per the correlation register, 00-19 guntas of land in Sy.No.157/3 were granted to Sri Appa Shetty and accordingly revenue entries were made. Sri Appa Shetty sold 00-19 guntas of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 land in Sy.No.157/3 in favour of Sri Govindappa through registered sale deed on 28.07.1966.
9. The plaintiffs and their vendors were not in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. It is pleaded that as per the correlation registrar, land in Sy.No.155/1, measuring 05 acre 04 guntas was re-granted to Sri Jayaramaiah and the same was entered in Karda extract, Index of Lands and Record of Rights. Therefore, it is pleaded that Sri Jayaramaiah was in actual possession and enjoyment of 05 acre 04 guntas of land. Subsequently, Sri Jayaramaiah and his brother Sri Ramanna partitioned 02 acre 20 guntas of land each with 00-02 guntas of Kharab land. Thereafter, Sri Ramanna sold 02 acre 20 guntas of land through three registered sale deeds on 07.01.2003 in favour of Smt Kamani R. Ramnani and similarly Sri Jayaramaiah also sold 02 acre 20 guntas of land in favour of Smt Kamani R. Ramnani through three separate registered sale deeds on 07.01.2003. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 Accordingly, revenue entries mutated in the name of Smt Kamani R. Ramnani.
10. Thereafter, the said Smt Kamani R. Ramnani sold entire 05 acre 04 guntas of land in favour of Smt Asha Pardeshi through registered sale deed bearing document No.6201/2005-06 on 07.09.2005 and subsequently she gifted in favour of the defendant. Thus, the defendant is claiming ownership over entire extent of 05 acre 04 guntas of land.
11. Before the Trial Court in the suit, the plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and the Trial Court, after hearing both the sides allowed the application and granted an order of temporary injunction as above stated.
12. The Trial Court assigned reasons that originally the entire extent of land was 05 acre 04 guntas. Admittedly, Sri Appa Shetty was granted 00-30 guntas of land and Sri Jayaramaiah was granted 04 acre 10 guntas -9- NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 of land. When this being the fact that Sri Jayaramaiah and his brother Sri Ramanna could not have partitioned the property considering their lands as 05 acre 04 guntas. Therefore, based on this reason, prima facie case was found that Sri Appa Shetty was granted 00-30 guntas of land and accordingly, an order of temporary injunction was issued.
13. Further, the Trial Court observed that the entire case is based on correlation register produced during considering the application. However, originally the grant was made as 00-30 guntas and 04 acre 10 guntas between Sri Appa Shetty and Sri Jayaramaiah respectively. Therefore, the application was allowed and an order of temporary injunction was granted.
14. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the documentary materials placed on record, the following points arise for consideration:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18074
MFA No. 1580 of 2025
i. Whether, under the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of an order of temporary injunction?
ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs proved that there is balance of convenience in their favour?
iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiffs will suffer loss and injury?
iv. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order passed by the Trial Court of granting an order of temporary injunction requires any interference by this Court?
15. The plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration and for permanent injunction by contending that they have purchased the suit schedule land to the extent of 00-30 guntas from its previous owners through registered sale deed dated 25.11.2024 in the land bearing Sy.No.155/1,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 which is originally measuring 05 acre 04 guntas. Upon the applications filed by Sri Appa Shetty and Sri Jayaramaiah respectively, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru re-granted 00-30 guntas of land in favour of Sri Appa Shetty and 04 acre 10 guntas of land in favour of Sri Jayaramaiah respectively.
16. When this being the fact, the maximum extent of land granted in favour of Sri Jayaramaiah is only 04 acre 10 guntas. Therefore, the defendant, claiming title through Sri Jayaramaiah can at the most be the owner of the land to the extent of 04 acre 10 guntas. Just because, Sri Jayaramaiah and his brother Sri Ramanna partitioned the property, it ought to have been in respect of 04 acre 10 guntas of land only, but they have partitioned the entire extent of 05 acre 04 guntas of land. Therefore, prima facie the claim of Sri Jayaramaiah and his brother Sri Ramanna to the extent 02 acre 20 guntas of land each is not correct.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025
17. It is the case made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint that the land bearing Sy.No.155/1 was maximum to the extent of 05 acre 04 guntas and the donor of the defendant had no right over more than 04 acre 10 guntas of land. The defendant is mainly claiming his title through correlation register, but under which provision of law the said correlation register was made has not been convinced by the counsel for the appellant/defendant. When this being the fact, in earlier proceedings in O.S.No.54/2025 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Devanahalli, the defendant herein, who was also the defendant filed written statement and admitted that it is true that Sy.No.155/1 of Hunasamaranahalli Village measuring 05 acre 04 guntas of land. Further, the defendant admitted that an order was passed in favour of Sri Appa Shetty by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru for 00-30 guntas. The defendant also admitted that he and his predecessors in title, Sri Jayaramaiah were granted 04 acre 10 guntas of land.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025
18. When this is an admitted fact that Sri Jayaramaiah was granted only to the extent of 04 acre 10 guntas of land, then the question that arises is how Sri Jayaramaiah and his brother Sri Ramanna partitioned the land bearing Sy.No.155/1 to the total extent of 05 acre 04 guntas, because out of entire extent of 05 acre 04 guntas in land bearing Sy.No.155/1, 00-30 guntas of land was re- granted to in favour of Sri Appa Shetty and remaining 04 acre 10 guntas was granted to the Sri Jayaramaiah. Therefore, in this regard, the Trial Court has appreciated the documentary materials on record correctly.
19. Further, in writ petition No.2913/2020 filed by the defendant herein, this Court by order dated 28.02.2025 has extracted the grant in favour of Sri Jayaramaiah in the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru and it is culled out that in the land bearing Sy.No.155/1, Sri Jayaramaiah was granted only 04 acre 10 guntas of land. Further, the said Sri Jayaramaih had admitted that he is in
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 possession of the land to the extent of 04 acre 10 guntas of land.
20. It is further observed by this Court in the writ petition that the petitioner (the defendant herein) is tracing title through Sri Jayaramaiah, but said Sri Jayaramaiah was granted land to the extent of 04 acre 10 guntas only. Therefore, based on the materials on record, whatever extent the defendant has only 04 acre 10 guntas and not more than that. This Court in the above said Writ Petition has observed that the Sri Appa Shetty was independently granted 00-30 guntas of land and Sri Jayaramaiah was granted 04 acre 10 guntas of land in the land bearing Sy.No.155/1 in the year 1961. When this being the fact, whatever title the defendant has prima facie, is only to the extent of 04 acre 10 guntas.
21. When this being the prima facie case made available to this Court, the plaintiffs have made out the prima facie case and the balance of convenience in their favour. If an order of temporary injunction is not granted,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in granting an order of temporary injunction against the defendant (appellant herein).
22. The Trial Court further observed prima facie that Sri Jayaramaiah was granted land only to the extent of 4 acre 10 guntas, but it is not correct that he partitioned the entire extent of 05 acre 04 guntas with his brother Sri Ramanna. In the entire case, at this stage, as per the documentary materials placed by the appellant/defendant is mainly based on the correlation register. Though this correlation register approved by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, it is mentioned in the same correlation register that in the land bearing Sy.No.155/1, Sri Jayaramaih was granted 04 acre 10 guntas and Sri Appa Shetty was granted 00-30 guntas of land.
23. Therefore, prima facie whatever the defendant may have claimed is only 04 acre 10 guntas and not 05 acre 04 guntas. This is correctly observed by the Trial
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18074 MFA No. 1580 of 2025 Court, which rightly concluded that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and the balance of convenience lies in their favour. If an order of temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiffs would suffer loss and injury. Accordingly, an order of temporary injunction is granted by passing a prohibitory order against the defendant.
24. This being a triable issue and finding the grant of extent of land by virtue of re-grant as above stated, the Trial Court is correct in granting interim order. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
25. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1