SMT SUNANDAMMA vs SRI ASWATH REDDY

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025







IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5349 OF 2025 (CPC)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5141 OF 2025 (CPC)



IN MFA No. 5349/2025

BETWEEN:
1. SMT SUNANDAMMA
W/O.YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.567, C/O PATEL YELLAPPA,
GEDDALAHALLI, KOTHNUR POST,
BENGALURU-560077
…APPELLANT





SIGN


(BY SRI. H RAMACHANDRA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. SRI ASWATH REDDY
S/O LATE VENKAT REDDY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13, EAST KATERIYYAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
VARTHUR, BENGALURU-560090.

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.A.SAMPATH., ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.2.6.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO
1/2025 IN OS.NO. 1267/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE IST
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-2) FILED UNDER ORDER39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION
151 OF CPC.
IN MFA NO. 5141/2025
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI ASWATH REDDY
S/O. LATE VENKAT REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO. NO13,
EAST KATTERRIYAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
VARTHUR, BANGALORE -560 090
NOW R/AT NO.102, RAMAIAH REDDY COMPOUND,
KODIHALLI,
BENGALURU 560 090.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMPATH A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT SUNANDAMMA
W/O. YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT 567, C/O PATEL YELLAPPA,
GEDDALAHALLI, KOTHNUR POST,
BENGALURU 77.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.H.RAMACHANDRA.,ADVOCATE)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 02.06.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1
IN O.S.NO.1267/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-2,
ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W
SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT



MFA.No.5349/2025 is preferred by the appellant,
who is the plaintiff, and the respondent is the defendant.
MFA.No.5141/2025 is preferred by the appellant who is
the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff
questioning the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 passed
by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, on IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and
2 read with Section 151 of CPC whereby, the
appellant/plaintiff had filed an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



restrain the respondent/defendant or anyone acting on his
behalf from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
pending disposal of the suit.
2. Both these appeals are taken up together, as
they are challenging the very same order on IA No. 1 with
the consent of both the parties.
3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred
to as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of brevity in
these two appeals, and the common order is passed
hereby.
4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the
relief of permanent injunction with regard to the suit
schedule property bearing Katha No.27, Property
No.42/1A, measuring to an extent of 60 feet east to west
and 72 feet north to south at Geddalahalli Village,
K.R.Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk. Along with the suit, an

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



application came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and
2 read with Section 151 of CPC restraining the defendant
from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
5. Upon the service of notice to the defendant, he
has appeared and filed objection statement to the
application, denied the contents therein, and sought for
rejection of the application. The trial Court, based on the
pleadings and the arguments advanced by both the
learned counsels, passed the impugned order on
02.06.2025 and directed the parties to maintain the status
quo in respect of the suit schedule property till disposal of
the suit. It is this order of status quo passed on IA.No.1 in
O.S.No.1267/2025 that is questioned by both the plaintiff
as well as defendant in these two appeals.
6. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff that the impugned order passed by
the learned trial judge is perverse, illegal and arbitrary and

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



against the settled principles governing the law of
temporary injunction. It is further contended by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff that the trial Court has
come to the conclusion that one Yellappa was allotted the
portion of the property bearing Survey No.42/4A1 under
the Panchayath Palupatti dated 10.07.1972. Trial Court
was not justified in coming to an opinion and a finding that
the said Yellappa, along with the plaintiff had alienated the
same in favour of one Smt.Shaheen Fathima. It is also
contended that the trial Court has held that the Yellappa
could not have executed the gift deed in 2004, having
already sold the same to Smt.Shaheen Fathima in the year
1995, and thereby the trial Court has committed
perversity in passing an order of status quo.
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel
for the plaintiff that the trial Court ought to have
considered the prima facie case made out by the plaintiff
and could not have directed both parties to maintain the
status quo as it infringes the right of the plaintiff to enjoy

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



the property which is his absolute property. The defendant
does not have any manner of right, title or interest over
the suit schedule property. Therefore, he contends that by
passing an impugned order of status quo, the plaintiff is
put to irreparable injury and hardship and the balance of
convenience tilts in his favour, which has been
conveniently ignored by the learned trial Judge while
passing the impugned order. Hence, he seeks to allow his
appeal, set aside the impugned order and consequently
allow the application by granting an order of temporary
injunction against the defendant.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant,
who is also an appellant in MFA.No.5141/2025,
vehemently contends that he has also challenged the
order on the ground of it being perverse and illegal,
contending that the trial Court has not appreciated the
materials available on record. He admitted the stand taken
by the plaintiff with regard to the Panchayath Palupatti
having been executed between the husband of the plaintiff

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



and her brothers on 10.07.1972 and subsequently
Yellappa having executed a registered gift deed on
06.09.2004 in favour of the plaintiff, based on which she
claims right and title over the suit schedule property.
9. Learned counsel for the defendant has taken
the contention that the trial Court has misdirected itself
and has not understood the facts and circumstances of the
case and has passed an order contrary to the well-settled
principles of grant of temporary injunction. It is contended
by the learned counsel for the defendant that the suit
schedule property was no doubt fallen to the share of one
Yellappa in the partition dated 10.07.1972. However,
Yellappa and his wife, i.e., the plaintiff, sold the site
bearing No.7, measuring to an extent of 60 feet and east
to west and 68 + 70/2 feet north to south to one
Smt.Shaheen Fathima under the registered sale deed
dated 07.11.1995. Thereafter, the said Smt.Shaheen
Fathima, sold the suit schedule property in favour of
Cherukuri Srinivasa Rao on 18.07.2013, who in turn sold

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



the suit property in favour of Jayamma and V.Gayathri
under the registered sale deed dated 24.09.2015.
10. It is further contended by the learned counsel
for the defendant that Jayamma is none other than the
mother-in-law of the defendant and V.Gayathri is the wife
of the defendant. It is also contended that after the death
of Jayamma, V.Gayathri being the only daughter of
Jayamma became the absolute owner of the suit schedule
property. Therefore, the wife of the defendant, being the
absolute owner, in the absence of her mother, is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property bearing site
No.7 and that the plaintiff has created a concocted and
bogus gift deed to claim right over the suit schedule
property in pursuance to the sale deed having been
executed to the vendor's vendor by the original owner
Yellappa and his wife, who is the plaintiff.
11. Therefore, learned counsel for the defendant
contends that when the sale deed was executed in favour

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



of Smt. Shaheen Fathima, by the original owner Yellappa
and his wife way back on 07.11.1995, the question of
plaintiff getting any right over the property does not arise.
Therefore, he contends that the property is now vested
with the wife of the defendant, and he contends that the
reasoning of the trial Court is absolutely perverse and
illegal and trial Court has lost sight of the facts in the law
and ought to have considered whether the plaintiff has
made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction, which
has not been adverted to in the impugned, and by grant of
order of status quo, the defendant has been put to
irreparable injury and hardship and balance of
convenience in fact tilts in favour of the defendant rather
than the plaintiff. Hence, he seeks to set aside the
impugned order and consequently, dismiss the application
- IA.No.1.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff
and learned counsel for the defendant.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



13. The point that arises for consideration before
this Court is:
" Whether the impugned order passed by
the trial Court calls for interference, and if
so, what order?"


14. It is not in dispute that the property bearing
42/1A measuring 60 feet east to west and north to south
72 feet, situated at Geddalahalli Village, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru East Taluk was acquired by the husband of the
plaintiff by name Yellappa under Panchayath Palupatti
dated 10.07.1972, and it was subsequently gifted by
registered gift deed dated 06.09.2004 in favour of the
plaintiff by Yellappa. In the meanwhile, there is a
registered sale deed executed by Yellappa and his wife on
07.11.1995, which is adverted to by the trial Court in its
order. The same is annexed along with the written
statement by the defendant, and subsequent to the said
sale deed, Smt.Shaheen Fathima has sold the said
property to one Cherukuri Srinivasa Rao on 18.07.2013

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



and another sale deed has arisen from the said owner in
favour of the Jayamma and V.Gayathri dated 24.09.2015.
These are registered sale deeds. Though these documents
are disputed, the fact remains that these are registered
sale deeds and they have a presumptive value in the eye
of law.
15. When an application is filed under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of
temporary injunction, the trial Court is required to see
three essential elements, namely, prima facie case,
balance of convenience, and irreparable injury and
hardship that would be caused more to which of the
parties. The trial court would have to look into the
materials placed on record, the affidavits and the
pleadings, along with the memo of documents, if any filed,
to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the plaintiff has
made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary
injunction. In the present case, it is the claim of the
plaintiff that there was a partition in 1972 and her

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



husband has gave a gift in the year 2004. Thereby she
becomes the absolute owner of the suit schedule property
and she denies the sale deed is executed in favour of the
wife of the defendant and the predecessors in title who are
beneficiaries of the registered sale deed at the hands of
the plaintiff and her husband Sri.Yellappa. Apart from
these documents, there are no other documents to show
the possession or title of the suit schedule property except
the trial Court coming to a conclusion that both the
plaintiff and the defendant have produced Katha extract.
16. It is to be seen that the plaintiff has approached
the Court, therefore the onus and burden is upon the
plaintiff to establish and prove that she has made out a
prima facie case for the grant of an order of temporary
injunction. When there are registered sale deeds in favour
of the wife of the defendant and her predecessors, the trial
Court has not adverted to any of these aspects in its
reasoning and finding. Therefore, the trial Court has not
adverted to the registered sale deed, which has

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



presumptive value in favour of the wife of the defendant
and her predecessors in title. Primarily, the plaintiff has to
make out a prima facie case which is not established.
When no prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff for
grant of temporary injunction, the question of looking into
the other two essential elements of balance of convenience
and irreparable injury and hardship would not arise for the
present issue, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Kashi Math Samsthan and another vs.
Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and another
reported in (2010) 1 SCC 689 .
17. Therefore, in the present case on hand, the
plaintiff has not made out prima facie case for the grant of
temporary injunction when the defendant has produced
title of his wife and her predecessors flowing from the
husband of the plaintiff by the plaintiff herself through
registered sale deeds. Therefore, there is a clear case
made out by the defendant, for having title in the name of
his wife. Be that as it may, the plaintiff has not filed a case

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



against the wife of the defendant who is the title holder,
but against the defendant as the husband of the title
holder. Be that as it may, it is for the plaintiff to establish
her case when she comes before the Court.
18. In the present facts and circumstances of the
case, it is apparently clear from the records and the
pleading that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie
case, so also the balance of convenience would not tilt in
favour of the plaintiff, and the irreparable injury and
hardship would not be caused to the plaintiff if no order is
granted; rather it would cause injury and hardship to the
defendant if an order is granted in favour of the plaintiff,
as the wife of the defendant is the absolute owner by way
of registered sale deed so also predecessors in title. Under
the circumstances, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1) The appeal - MFA.No.5349/2025 filed
by the plaintiff is dismissed . The order

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58152
MFA No. 5349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 5141 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010468922025



passed by the learned trial Judge dated
02.06.2025 in O.S.No.1267/2025 is
hereby set aside.
2) The appeal - MFA.No.5141/2025 filed
by the defendant is allowed.
Consequently, the application - IA.No.1
filed under XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read
with Section 151 of CPC is dismissed.
3) Ordered accordingly.
4) It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of
the matter.
5) All contentions of the parties are kept
open.

Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE

RCK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28