Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Rangamma D/o Late Hanumaiah @ Narayanappa – Appellant
Versus
Lalithamma W/o Late Krishnappa – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Batch of these petitions call in question an order dated 04-11-2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in M.A.Nos.24 of 2024, 21 of 2024, 22 of 2024 and 23 of 2024 respectively, by which the order dated 07-03-2024 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on I.A.No.I filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, in O.S.No.1255 of 2023, 1258 of 2023, 1256 of 2023 and 1257 of 2023 respectively, refusing to grant temporary injunction, comes to be granted.
2. Heard Sri C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.B.Chandachooda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts, in brief, are as follows: -
Since the contentions urged in all the petitions are same, except the change in original suit numbers and miscellaneous appeal numbers, for understanding, the facts as narrated in W.P.No.2384 of 2025 are narrated:
The petitioners 1 and 2, in the case at hand, are said to be daughters and the 3rd petitioner is said to be the son-in-law of one late Hanumaiah and his wife late Rangamma. The 1st respondent/plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.1255 of 2023 against
The court upheld the 1st Appellate Court's grant of temporary injunction to protect the plaintiff's possession of the property pending adjudication, affirming that appellate courts focus on preservin....
A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and approach the court with clean hands; lack of evidence or lawful possession can lead to dismissal ....
A plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential hardship to obtain a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
In property disputes, possession follows title; plaintiffs established a prima facie case warranting temporary injunction despite defendants' claims.
Temporary injunctions must align with the relief sought in the main suit; granting relief beyond this scope is impermissible.
Court must grant injunction to protect possession when a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm are established.
The court emphasized that a party seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm, with a failure to do so justifying dismissa....
Discretion exercised by the Court below in passing the order under challenge is neither arbitrary, capricious nor perverse and it is adhering to the settled principles of law regulating grant of refu....
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.
The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is upheld in injunction suits despite title disputes, reaffirming the principle of protecting long settled possession from forcible eviction without due process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
