SMT KAVITHA R vs K C SHASHIKANTH

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7052 OF 2026 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. KAVITHA R
W/O SRI. M.G. LOKESH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 169A/1, GANESH KAMAL NILAYA,
MADHUVANA BLOCK, WARD NO. 15,
MANGO GARDEN, SAMRUDHI BOYS PG,
CHRISTIAN COLONY,
CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.

2. SRI. VISHWASAGARA SARANGAMATH,
S/O. SHANTHAVEERAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1252/31, 2ND FLOOR,
1ST A MAIN ROAD, MC LAYOUT,
RAHEJA PARK, VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 040.

3. SMT. S. ANITHA SRINIVAS,
W/O. SRI. S.V. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT BEVINAMARADA ROAD,
VEDAVATHINAGARA,
SHUGAR FACTORY, HIRIYURU,
CHITRADURGA - 577 599.












Digitally

signed by
VINUTHA M
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



4. SRI. MALLESHAPPA THUNGALA,
S/O. SRI. LAKSHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 993, WARD NO. 26,
KUMBARGALLI, RABAKAVI,
BAGALKOTE - 587 314.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.
K.C. SHASHIKANTH
S/O K.C CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO.422522, PRESTIGE FALCON CITY,
KONANAKUNTE CROSS,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 062.

2.
SMT. LALITHAMMA,
W/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE,
R.V. COLLEGE POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 059.

3. SRI. MUNIRAJU. N,
S/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE,
R.V. COLLEGE POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 059.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



4. SRI. NAGARAJ. N,
S/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE,
R.V. COLLEGE POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 059.

5. SRI. VENUGOPAL. V,
S/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE,
R.V. COLLEGE POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 059.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.E. SREEDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 01.10.2026, NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 IS
DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DT. 27.08.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.6 IN
O.S.NO.3742/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-38, REJECTING
IA.6/2026 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellants who are
defendant Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 before the trial Court in
OS.No.3742/2023, challenging the orders passed on
IA.No.6 by the LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
C/c XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru. The respondent No.1 is the plaintiff.
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the co-defendants before the
trial Court.

2. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as
the plaintiff and the defendants for the sake of brevity.

3. Plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants
initially for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, he
filed an application-IA.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and
2 read with Section 151 of CPC restraining the defendants
from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Initially there
were four defendants i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 5. The trial

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



Court being satisfied, granted an order of temporary
injunction, restraining the original defendants from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

4. It is seen that subsequently the plaintiff got the
plaint amended by incorporating paragraph 14 (a) to (i)
and also the main prayer in the suit. Thereby adding-
" prayer-(a) - for the relief of declaration to
declare the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of
the suit schedule property.
Prayer - (b) - to direct the defendants to
hand over the physical possession of the suit
schedule property to the plaintiffs. Prayer -
(c) - to declare the sale deed dated:31-01-2025
is registered as Document No.JPN-1-08849-
2024-25, Book - 1, stored in centralized CD,
registered in the office of the Sub - Registrar,
Jayanagara (J.P.Nagara), Bengaluru, registered
on 03-02-2025 executed by the Defendants
No.1 to 4 in respect of Defendant No.1 to 4
created Schedule Property in favour of
Smt.Kavitha.B, Sri.Vishwasagar Sarangamath,

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



Smt.S.Anitha Sreenivasa and Sri.Malleshappa
Tungala is not binding to the plaintiff.
Prayer -(d) - restraining the Defendants
either from interfering with or from meddling
with the suit property in any manner or
otherwise from disturbing the Plaintiff's peaceful,
lawful, physical, actual and exclusive possession
and enjoyment of suit schedule property either
by the Defendants or themselves or through
their workers, henchmen, Authorized Agents,
General Power of Attorney Holders, servants or
any person or persons claiming any right or
rights in any manner whatsoever under or
through the Defendants by granting Permanent
Injunction.
Prayer - (e) - Directing the Defendants to
pay the cost of the suit.
Prayer - (f) - Granting any other relief/s as
this Hon'ble Court deem fit under the
circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity. "

Thereby the plaintiff converted the suit for
permanent injunction into a suit for declaration and for
handing over of possession of suit schedule property by
the defendants to the plaintiff.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



5. It is the case of the plaintiff that during the
pendency of the suit for bare injunction, the suit schedule
property was sold in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 8 who
are the appellants herein, by the defendant Nos.1 to 4
despite the order of temporary injunction operating as
against the defendants to not to interfere.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that subsequent to the
purchase by the defendant Nos.5 to 8, they have already
put up construction in portion of the suit schedule
property, and further constructions are being put up by
the defendant Nos.5 to 8 in the suit schedule property
which is the reason why the plaintiff sought for
amendment and amended the plaint incorporating the
prayer for declaration and possession. This being the facts
of the case, defendant Nos.5 to 8 are being impleaded in
the suit proceedings and filed an application - IA.No.6
under Order XXXIX Rule 4 under Section 151 of CPC to
vacate the order of temporary injunction dated

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



30.05.2024. The said application was seriously contested
by the plaintiff.

7. The trial Court, upon hearing the learned counsel
for the plaintiff and the contesting defendant Nos.5 to 8
did not find favour with the defendant Nos.5 to 8 and
agreed with the contentions of the plaintiff and
consequently rejected the application - IA No.6 filed
under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC by
the defendant Nos.5 to 8, who are the appellants herein,
which is the subject matter of the appeal herein.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant
Nos.5 to 8 vehemently contends that the impugned order
passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting the application-
IA.No.6 is perverse, illegal and arbitrary and the same
requires to be set aside. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.5 to 8 that the
plaintiff had filed the suit for temporary injunction initially,
and subsequently he has filed the suit for declaration and

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



possession from the defendants and recovery of the
possession from the appellants/defendant Nos.5 to 8.

8.1 It is further contended by learned counsel for the
appellants/defendant Nos.5 to 8 that the temporary
injunction was initially granted in favour of the plaintiff on
the assertion that the plaintiff was in lawful possession.
However, the plaintiff was not in lawful possession. The
original defendants were in possession, and they have
transferred the property in favour of the defendant Nos.5
to 8 by way of registered sale deed. The defendant Nos.5
to 8 are pendente lite purchasers, and the trial Court has
also come to a conclusion that it is a matter of trial to be
decided over the period of evidence being recorded that
whether the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 are bonafide
purchasers and whether they will be bound by the ultimate
outcome of the suit, and the trial Court has misinterpreted
the object of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
and has passed the impugned order rejecting the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



application -IA.No.6 filed by the defendant Nos.5 to 8 for
vacating the order of temporary injunction granted in
favour of the original defendants, i.e., defendant Nos.1 to
4.

8.2 It is further contended that it is an admitted fact
that defendant Nos.5 to 8 are now in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of a
registered sale deed. It is further contended that they
have obtained e-Khatha and building licence, which would
enable them to put up construction on the suit schedule
property.

8.3 It is further contended that the trial Court has
held that defendant Nos.5 to 8 have not produced any
documents to show that they have entered into a Joint
Development Agreement, nor have they produced any
documents to establish their ownership and title over the
suit schedule property. It is further contended that there is
no dispute that defendant Nos.5 to 8 have purchased the

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit.
However, defendant Nos.1 to 4 are admittedly in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

8.4 It is further contended that subsequent to the
purchase of the suit schedule property during the
pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.5 to 8 have obtained
a sanctioned plan for putting up construction and are in
the process of putting up construction on the suit schedule
property. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the
plaintiff has now amended the suit seeking a declaration
and the relief of restoration of possession from defendant
Nos.5 to 8. Apparently, there is no dispute that the
plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property
and that the suit is no longer one for permanent
injunction, but has been amended to seek relief of
declaration and recovery of possession. In that view of the
matter, eventually, if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the
trial Court will have to pass an appropriate decree

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



directing the defendants to hand over possession of the
suit schedule property or if the Court deems it appropriate,
to demolish the structure put up thereon at the cost of the
defendants.

8.5 It is further contended that, in view of the fact
that defendant Nos.5 to 8 have become the absolute
owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of a
registered sale deed and have obtained a sanctioned plan
for putting up construction from the Statutory Authorities,
they may be permitted to proceed with the construction. It
is submitted that, in the event of the plaintiff succeeding
in the suit, they would not claim any equity and would
abide by such terms and conditions as may be imposed by
this Court. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the
appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

9. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.1-
plaintiff vehemently contends that defendant Nos.5 to 8
have not produced any documents before the trial Court to

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



establish that they have obtained sanctioned plan or have
commenced construction on the suit schedule property or
any portion thereof.

9.1 It is further contended that the portion of the suit
schedule property is still vacant and no construction has
been put up thereon. No doubt, during the pendency of
the suit, defendant Nos.5 to 8 have ventured into an
adventurous act of purchasing the property despite having
knowledge of the pendency of the suit and the subsisting
order restraining the original defendant Nos.1 to 4 from
interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore,
defendant Nos.5 to 8 have taken the risk of purchasing a
property which is the subject matter of a pending dispute
and litigation before the Court. The plaintiff was left with
no option but to amend the plaint by seeking relief of
declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of the
suit schedule property.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



9.2 It is the apprehension and grievance of learned
counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff that, in the event
defendant Nos.5 to 8 put up construction and the plaintiff
ultimately succeeds in the suit, defendant Nos.5 to 8
should not be permitted to claim any equity and should be
directed to demolish the structure put up by them at their
own cost, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Therefore, learned counsel seeks dismissal of the appeal
and sustains the impugned order on the ground that there
is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial
Court.

10. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-
defendant Nos.5 to 8 and learned counsel for respondent
No.1-plaintiff, the point that arise for consideration is as
follows:
"1. Whether the impugned order passed by the trial
Court calls for interference? and
2. If so, what order?"

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



11. It is not in dispute that initially, the suit was filed
by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction.
Subsequently, in view of defendant Nos.1 to 4 alienating a
portion of the suit schedule property in favour of the
appellant-defendant Nos.5 to 8, the plaintiff amended the
suit. Ultimately, during the course of the trial, the trial
Court will have to consider whether, in the event of the
plaintiff succeeding in the suit, defendant Nos. 5 to 8
would be required to demolish the construction put up on
the suit schedule property or whether they would be
entitled to claim any equity in respect of such
construction.

12. In view of the fact that defendant Nos.5 to 8 are
in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property,
having obtained the necessary sanctioned plan and having
commenced construction over the larger extent of the
property, while the plaintiff is claiming a portion of the
larger extent, measuring 2,400 square feet, the rights of

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



the parties will have to be adjudicated by the trial Court
after a full-fledged trial.

13. In the event the plaintiff does not succeed in the
suit, defendant Nos.5 to 8 cannot be put to hardship for
having purchased the property and invested substantial
amounts in putting up construction. Therefore, apart from
examining the existence of a prima facie case, the Court
will also have to consider the other two essential
requirements, namely, the balance of convenience and
irreparable injury, as well as the hardship that may be
caused to the parties either by granting or rejecting the
order of temporary injunction. Ultimately, the Court will
have to assess which of the compelling considerations
outweighs the other, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case.

14. Admittedly, in the present suit, the plaintiff has
amended the plaint seeking declaratory relief and recovery
of possession. The very fact that the plaintiff is seeking

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



recovery of possession indicates that he is not in
possession of the suit schedule property, whereas the
defendants are in possession and enjoyment thereof.
Therefore, the trial Court ought to have analysed these
aspects, particularly the balance of convenience and
irreparable injury, while considering the application filed
under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC seeking vacation of the
order of temporary injunction. However, these relevant
aspects have not been taken into consideration by the trial
Court while deciding the said application.

15. It is also vehemently contended by learned
counsel for appellant-defendant Nos.5 to 8 that the
plaintiff does not have any right, title or interest over the
suit schedule property, particularly when the registered
sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is based on an
unregistered Power of Attorney and an unregistered
Agreement of Sale. All these are matters that require
consideration and adjudication during the course of trial.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



16. It would not be appropriate for this Court to
delve into these aspects, as it would affect the rights of
both parties during the trial. Hence, it would suffice to hold
that the trial Court has committed an illegality and
perversity in dismissing I.A.No.6 filed under Order XXXIX
Rule 4 of CPC, despite the fact that defendant Nos.5 to 8
are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property by virtue of a registered sale deed and have
proceeded with construction after obtaining the sanctioned
plan and necessary permissions from the Statutory
Authorities. Of course, appropriate conditions can be
imposed on defendant Nos.5 to 8 to safeguard the
interests of the plaintiff in the event of the plaintiff
succeeding in the suit.

17. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
allowed
i. The appeal is ;

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026




ii. The impugned Order dated 27.08.2026
passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.3742/2023 by
XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside;

iii. Consequently, the order passed on the
application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC,
granting temporary injunction, is hereby set
aside;

iv. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the
matter;

v. It is also made clear that appellant-
defendant Nos.5 to 8 shall not claim any
equity in the event the plaintiff succeeds in
the suit. It is further made clear that, in such
an eventuality, defendant Nos.5 to 8 shall, if
so required at the instance of the plaintiff,

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60101
MFA No. 7052 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010668262026



demolish any structure put up on the suit
schedule property at their own cost;

vi. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year
2023, the trial Court shall endeavour to
dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably
within a period of one (1) year from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order;

vii. All contentions of the parties are kept open.



Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE


paragraphs 1 to 8.1.. RCK
paragraphs 8.2 to end ..CPN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52