SRI N. SATISH v. SRI NARASIMHAIAH .O

The Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed assailing the Order dated 10.10.2025 passed in O.S.No.5393/2025, by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-2) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC came to be allowed, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit's schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

2. Facts in nutshell is that the plaintiff instituted Suit O.S.No.5393/2025, seeking a relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property bearing Site No.59A formed in Sy.No.21/1, measuring East-West 30 feet, North-South 40 feet, in all measuring 1200 square feet, bounded to the East Site No.114-4, West by private - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 HC-KAR land, North by Site No.59, South by road (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’ for short).

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said suit schedule property was purchased by their mother under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2002 and after her demise, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the property and are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that defendant, who claims to be the owner over the adjacent property bearing Site No.114-4, has been attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and has made attempt to put up construction and demolish the existing compound wall. In that view of the matter, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction.

4. The defendant entered appearance and contested the matter, contending that he is the absolute owner in possession of Site No.114/A under a registered sale deed dated 17.05.2004 and the plaintiffs are trying to - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 HC-KAR encroach upon his property. It is contended that there exists a dispute regarding boundary and extent of the boundary properties and therefore a suit for bare injunction was not maintainable without seeking declaration.

5. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record, observed that the plaintiffs have produced registered sale deed of 2002 and the documents produced support possession and the prima facie case has been established by the plaintiffs. The existence and location of the suit schedule property was not seriously disputed by the defendant. The dispute pertains to the adjacent properties within the same layout and at this stage detailed adjudication of title is not warranted. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour and refusal of injunction would result in irreparable loss. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 HC-KAR

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court granting temporary injunction is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the material on record and hence liable to be set aside. It is contended that the appellant is the absolute owner in possession of Site No.114/A by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 17.05.2004, and the documents produced by the appellant clearly evidences his lawful possession. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the core dispute between the parties is with regard to the boundary measurement and identity of the property and therefore a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration. It is contended that the plaintiffs are attempting to encroach upon the appellant’s property under the guise of adjoining ownership and the alleged interference is in fact by the plaintiffs and not by the defendant.

7. It is further contended that the Trial Court finding that the plaintiffs have established prima facie - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:16078 MFA No. 52 of 2026 HC-KAR case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury is contrary to the material on record and suffers from non- application of mind. It is contended that there is a serious dispute with regard title, possession and identification of the property and in such circumstances, the relief of injunction ought not to have been granted.

8. Learned counsel the appellant places reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court: i. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) By LRS. And Others1 (Anathula Sudhakar). ii. Sanjay Paliwal and Another Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Through Its Executive Director2 (Sanjay Paliwal). iii. Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd.3 ORDER i. ii. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. The order dated 10.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.5393/2025 by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-2) is hereby confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74