Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shanthamma vs Sri. T.P. Krishna Prasad on 17 December, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53971
MFA No. 8743 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8743 OF 2025
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8746 OF 2025 (CPC)
IN MFA No. 8743/2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTHAMMA
WIFE OF LATE DASAPPA.R,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 63, NHCH LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.DIWKAR., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. LOKESH B.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. T.P. PRADEEP KUMAR
Digitally SON OF LATE T.K. PARTHASARATHY,
signed by
RAMYA D AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
Location: RESIDING AT NO. 16,
HIGH COURT SARAKKI MAIN ROAD,
OF VYSYA BANK COLONY,
KARNATAKA JP NAGAR 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
2. SRI. N. VENKATESH
SON OF LATE A. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.41, 1ST F MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY &
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53971
MFA No. 8743 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2025
HC-KAR
SRI. PRITHVIRAJ SHASTRY. G, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1 IN
CPNO. 23861/2025)
THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DT. 28.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 1 IN O.S.NO.
5902/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-14),
ALLOWING IA NO. 1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
IN MFA NO. 8746/2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTHAMMA
WIFE OF LATE DASAPPA.R,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 63, NHCS LAYOUT,
2ND CROSS, BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.DIWKAR., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. LOKESH B.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. T.P. KRISHNA PRASAD
SON OF LATE T.K. PARTHASARATHY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 16,
SARAKKI MAIN ROAD,
VYSYA BANK COLONY,
JP NAGAR 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
2. SRI. N. VENKATESH
S/O LATE A NARAYANAPPA
AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS
NO 41 1ST F MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 085
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY &
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:53971
MFA No. 8743 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2025
HC-KAR
SRI. PRITHVIRAJ SHASTRY. G, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1 IN
CPNO. 23861/2025)
THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DT. 28.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 1 IN
O.S.NO. 5731/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-14),
ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the defendant No.1 questioning the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.5902/2025, thereby, I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is allowed.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction stating that the he has purchased the suit sites Nos.23 and 24 from one Manchaiah through registered sale deed dated 23.06.1997 executed by the Power of Attorney Holder of Manchaiah and since then he is in -4- NC: 2025:KHC:53971 MFA No. 8743 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2025 HC-KAR possession over the property, but the defendants have caused interference with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction.
3. The application filed by the plaintiff was allowed on the ground that Manchaiah died on 03.05.2015, but the sale deeds of the defendant No.1 stated to have been executed by defendant No.2 are dated 16.11.2022 and 04.11.2022. Therefore, prima facie held that the plaintiff's sale deed is valid one. Further the defendants have not produced the sale deeds dated 16.11.2022 and 04.11.2022. Further as per layout plan the plaintiff has produced sale deeds of every site, which are tallied with the boundaries found in the layout plan. Therefore, upon finding that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience, the trial court granted an order of temporary injunction. Against which, the defendant No.1 has filed an appeal and the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 submitted that the site No.24 is -5- NC: 2025:KHC:53971 MFA No. 8743 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2025 HC-KAR not in existence. The defendant No.1 has purchased 2 sites No.18 and 23 from the defendant No.2 through registered sale deeds dated 16.11.2022 and 04.11.2022. Therefore, learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submitted that the defendant No.1 has paid tax upto date and produced copies of tax paid receipts and also produced Gram Thana Khatha, BBMP Khatha and layout plan. Therefore, submitted that defendant No.1 is a bonafide purchaser from the defendant No.2 and submitted that the order of temporary injunction is perverse. Hence, prays for allowing the appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of materials produced by both the parties, the following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendant No.1 demonstrates that the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the court so as to -6- NC: 2025:KHC:53971 MFA No. 8743 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2025 HC-KAR not to grant an order of temporary injunction?
(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendant No.1 demonstrates that the plaintiff has not made out balance of convenience on the basis of materials produced before the court so as to not to grant an order of temporary injunction?
(iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff, then the defendant No.1 would be put into irreparable loss or injury?
(iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the trial court requires any interference?
5. Upon considering the materials produced by both the parties in the appeals, which are stated to have been produced before the trial court, prima facie it is elicited that the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 23.06.1997 is executed by Manchaiah through power of attorney holder - defendant No.2. The plaintiff has purchased 2 sites No.23 and 24 and the layout plan produced by both -7- NC: 2025:KHC:53971 MFA No. 8743 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2025 HC-KAR sides are not approved layouts, but they have to be considered with regard to ascertain the boundaries. Whether the layout plans are approved or not, is to be considered by the other competent authority, but both the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have produced different layout plans. Then considering the boundaries mentioned in the written statement produced by the defendant No.1, who is claiming to be purchaser of site Nos.18 and 23, are not tallied with according to both layout plans produced. Whereas, the boundaries stated in the sale deeds of plaintiff are tallied with the layout plan produced by the plaintiff. Also the plaintiff has produced the sale deeds of neighbouring lands the boundaries of which are tallied in correspondences with the boundaries of the plaintiff's sale deeds. But the boundaries shown in the written statement with regard to site Nos.18 and 23 are not tallied with the layout plan produced by the defendant No.1 herself.
6. The defendant No.1 has produced tax paid receipts and sale deeds dated 16.11.2022 and -8- NC: 2025:KHC:53971 MFA No. 8743 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2025 HC-KAR 04.11.2022. The plaintiff has produced the death certificate of Manchaiah, who died on 03.05.2015. Admittedly, the power of attorney produced is registered one, but by the time when defendant No.2 had executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.1, Manchaiah had died. Therefore, after the death of Manchaiah the defendant No.2 had executed registered sale deeds on 16.11.2022 and 04.11.2022 respectively. As per Section 3 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, whether the agency is amounting to be terminated or not, is a question to be considered during the trial, but prima facie it is shown that the sale deeds of the defendant No.1 having purchased sites by defendant No.2 being power of attorney holder of Manchaiah is of the year November 2022. Therefore, as per the sale deeds produced by plaintiff and also layout plans in correspondence with the layout plan produced, the boundaries are tallied and are shown to be in existence.
7. Comparatively the boundaries stated by the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:53971 MFA No. 8743 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 8746 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant No.1 in her written statement does not tally with her own layout plan produced. Further the plaintiff has produced the copy of khatha and tax paid receipts, which also prove the fact that the plaintiff is in possession. Therefore, in this regard, the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience, which is correctly appreciated by the trial court and hence, trial court has granted the order of temporary injunction, which needs no interference in the absence of perversity or illegality. Accordingly, the defendant No.1 has not shown that the plaintiff has no prima facie case and balance of convenience and if order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff would be put to loss or injury. Therefore, I answer Point Nos.(i) to (iv) in the negative. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38