SMT.SHANTHA R.S. vs SRI.VENKATESH

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58982
MFA No. 9833 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010853752025





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9833 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT.SHANTHA R.S.
W/O. LATE R NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/ AT NO.53, UPSTAIR,
4TH CROSS, KODANDARAMAPURAM,
PRESENTLY KNOWN AS
SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION,
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU 560 003
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH U.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI.VENKATESH
S/O. SRI.G.LAXMAN RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO. 59, 2ND CROSS
CHOWDAIAH BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MALLESAPPA L., ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 22.11.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 1 IN
O.S.NO.2159/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL

















Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA M
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58982
MFA No. 9833 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010853752025



CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH 36
ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the
defendant in O.S.No.2159/2025, seeking to set aside the
impugned order dated 22.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 by the
trial Court.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court.

3. Parties shall be referred to as per their status
before the trial Court as plaintiff and defendant.

4. Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the
relief of permanent injunction with regard to the suit schedule
property.

5. Along with the plaint, an application came to be
filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary
injunction against the defendant restraining her from

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58982
MFA No. 9833 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010853752025



interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit
property i.e., site bearing No.67, Khata No.33/3A measuring to
an extent of East to West 50 feet and North to South 30 feet
situated at Geddalahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North
Taluk, presently called Sanjay Nagara.

6. Upon summons being served, the defendant
appeared; filed her statement of objections denying the claim
so made and the plea so taken by the plaintiff and took up a
plea that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule
property, having purchased the same by way of a registered
sale deed dated 10.02.1986 and pursuant thereafter, she is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in her
own right.

7. The trial Court, upon consideration of the
application, passed an order in favour of the plaintiff by
allowing the application and restraining the defendant from
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff
over the suit schedule property and ad-interim order, which
was granted earlier, was made absolute.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58982
MFA No. 9833 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010853752025



8. It is this order which is challenged by the appellant-
defendant on several grounds.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the impugned order is illegal, perverse and arbitrary and the
same is not sustainable in the eye of law. He contends that the
suit schedule property was acquired by the BDA for the purpose
of formation of Rajmahal Vilas extension, 2nd stage and the
written statement property namely Site No.154 measuring East
to West 50 feet and North to South 52 + 21.5 feet totally
measuring 1825 square feet was allotted to the defendant and
accordingly, the sale deed was executed in her favour. She has
also obtained a possession certificate issued to her on
09.04.1986; the name of defendant was entered in the BBMP
records; Khata was transferred and she is in actual possession
and enjoyment of the suit property, having obtained electricity
connection, water connection and has also constructed a house
in the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the
defendant has let out the property to a tenant.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58982
MFA No. 9833 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010853752025



9.1. It is a vehement contention of learned counsel that
once the property bearing Survey No.33/A has been acquired
by the BDA for formation of the layout, the question of the
plaintiff securing a right from the original owner of the land
would not arise. Therefore, the very suit filed by the plaintiff
itself is not maintainable and the same deserves to be
dismissed. The question of granting any interim order is
far-fetched and imaginary, which ought not to have been
granted by the trial Court and the same is illegal, perverse and
arbitrary. Consequently, he seeks to allow the appeal and set
aside the same.

Per contra
10. , learned counsel for the respondent-
plaintiff sustains the impugned order by contending that there
is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and that the
property of the plaintiff and the defendant are two different
properties measuring different extent so also having different
boundaries and that the property of the plaintiff was not
acquired. Therefore, he contends that it is for the trial Court to
decide the suit during the course of trial upon identifying the
property by the respective parties. Therefore, he contends that

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58982
MFA No. 9833 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010853752025



there is no illegality in the impugned order and the appeal
requires to be dismissed.

11. Pursuant to the argument addressed by learned
counsel for the respondent-plaintiff for some time, learned
counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that in the course
of the pendency of this appeal, an interim order came to be
passed by this Court at the initial stage itself, whereby an order
of status-quo was ordered to be maintained by both the
parties.

12. Learned counsel for both parties submit that the
status-quo order with regard to possession and enjoyment be
maintained and the parties were to proceed further in the trial
and if this Court were to expedite the hearing before the trial
Court, they would co-operate with the proceedings before the
trial Court and an expeditious order could be passed as the suit
is now listed for evidence of the plaintiff.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant also
contends that the appellant is aged more than 90 years and
she likes to see the end of the light during her lifetime with

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58982
MFA No. 9833 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010853752025



regard to the litigation on hand as she is unable to enjoy the
fruits of the site, which she secured by the sale deed dated
10.02.1986 in view of unnecessary litigation instituted by the
respondent-plaintiff. It is also contended by learned counsel for
the appellant that in pursuance of the sale deed, she has put
up construction and has rented the property to a tenant. It is
also contended that in view of an attempt made by the National
Co-operative Bank, having initiated action on the pretext that
the plaintiff Venkatesh had obtained a loan by way of mortgage
of title deeds, attaching and initiating SARFAESI proceedings
against the property of the appellant-defendant, the appellant
initiated a suit against the Bank and obtained an order of
injunction which is operating in force. Therefore, he seeks that
an order of status-quo be ordered to be maintained with regard
to possession and enjoyment of the property and for
expeditious disposal.

14. Without adverting to the merits of the matter and in
view of the submission made by the learned counsel for both
parties, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the appeal
by an order of status-quo to be maintained by both the plaintiff

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58982
MFA No. 9833 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010853752025



and the defendant with regard to the possession and
enjoyment of their respective properties and either of them
shall not make any attempt to interfere with each other, of
course keeping open the rights of both the parties to be
agitated before the trial Court by urging all contentions that are
taken up before this Court and also the grounds that are made
out before the trial Court itself.

15. Under the circumstances, without delving into the
merits of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) This appeal is disposed of .

ii) The impugned order dated 22.11.2025 passed
on I.A.No.1 by the trial Court is hereby set
aside.

iii) The parties to maintain status-quo with regard
to possession and enjoyment of their
respective portions of the property.

iv) The trial Court shall expedite the matter and
dispose of the suit within a period of one year,

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58982
MFA No. 9833 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010853752025



of course by providing suitable opportunity to
both parties.

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

vi) The trial Court shall dispose of the matter
keeping in mind the age of the appellant-
defendant being more than 90 years in an
expeditious manner so that she could see the
outcome of this suit during her lifetime.

Ordered accordingly.




Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE



VM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38