(BY SRI. JAYASIMHA K.P., ADVOCATE,) v. (BY SRI. SHANKAR G., ADVOCATE)

S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, RESIDING AT 34/4, “SRI RAJARAJESHWARI NIVASA”, 3RD CROSS, NEAR RARAJESHWARI THEATER MALATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560056. ALSO AT C/O MAHADEV, NO.155, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MALATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 056. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. JAYASIMHA K.P., ADVOCATE,) …APPELLANTS AND:

1. SMT. LAKSHMI G., W/O LATE N. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50327 MFA No. 6579 of 2024 RESIDING AT NO.1, 7TH ‘C’ CROSS, GARDEN VILAS, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072. (BY SRI. SHANKAR G., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.6147/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-27 ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal filed against the order dated

17.09.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.6147/2024, wherein the Trial Court granted the relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering/alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed before this Court. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50327 MFA No. 6579 of 2024

4. The main contention of the defendants before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff created the documents. In turn defendant No.2 is claiming that the suit sites have been carved after obtaining land conversion order in the year 1971. The Trial Court has taken note that if that aspect is considered, it is not in dispute that way back in the year 1971 itself land bearing Sy.No.34/4 has been converted, it was in the lifetime of the father of defendant No.2 and his brother, Mayanna. The Trial Court has also taken note that defendant No.2 contended that he is in possession of the suit site since more than 50 years, out of love and affection he gifted the said sites in favour of his son defendant No.1 herein under a registered gift deed dated

18.11.2016. The Trial Court in paragraph No.10 taken note that they are claiming the property based on the panchayath parikath dated 08.05.1994 entered between defendant No.2 and his brother Mayanna. The Trial Court also taken note that already there was a conversion and property was also sold long back and particularly taken note of the fact that the layout formed in the land bearing Sy.No.34/4, no sites are left as on

06.02.1986 in the family of the defendant No.2 herein. The Trial Court also taken note of that subsequent to the selling of - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50327 MFA No. 6579 of 2024 all the properties, the brothers entered into panchayath parikath on 08.05.1994 and making claim based on the same.

5. The Trial Court taken note of the fact that when the property was sold during the lifetime of the father in the year 1971 itself in favour of Smt.A.M.Almeda by defendant No.2, his brother Mayanna and their father Rudrappa, the question of considering the subsequent panchayath parikath between the brothers and creating of the gift deed in favour of defendant No.1 does not arise. The Trial Court taken note of the fact that Almeda sold the same in favour of Nanjegowda on 09.09.1992, who in turn sold the said property in favour of the plaintiff herein under registered sale deed dated 13.01.2012 through the GPA holder of the said Nanjegowda. Later on, the legal heirs have relinquished their right by executing the sale confirmation dated 25.10.2019. All these materials are taken note of by the Trial Court that when the property was sold in the year 1971, the same was exchanged between several persons and now based on the panchayath parikath, the defendants cannot claim right and rightly comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for granting of injunction. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that if at all the suit sites were remained unsold, then the plaintiff’s brother Mayanna and - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50327 MFA No. 6579 of 2024 defendant No.2 would have been partitioned under the above said panchayath parikath. A specific observation is made that as the partition by way of panchayath parikath was subsequent to the conversion of the land in respect of Sy.No.34/4 and sale of sites carved therein and thereafter only sold the property and the plaintiff also claiming right based on the original sale deed of the year 1971 and subsequently the same was executed in favour of Nanjegowda on 09.09.1992 and subsequently it was purchased by the plaintiff on 13.01.2012. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in considering the material on record.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court granted an order of status quo at the first instance and hence status quo may be ordered.

7. The said submission of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. Before granting the temporary injunction on merits, the status quo order was granted, but subsequently on considering the pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendants, a clear finding was given by the Trial Court that the plaintiff is claiming right from 1971 onwards since the - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50327 MFA No. 6579 of 2024 properties are exchanged to different hands and at present, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and hence rightly granted the relief of temporary injunction not to interfere and not to alienate the suit schedule property against the appellants/defendants.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43