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 preserving rights and assessing prima facie evidence.

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 3^rd petitioner is said to be the son-in-law of one late Hanumaiah and his wife late Rangamma. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.1255 of 2023 against the petitioners and other respondents/defendants before the civil Court seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any one interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The 2^nd petitioner is said to have filed a detailed written statement and opposed the claim of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1255 of 2023 and filed a memo for treating the written statement as objections to the interim application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The trial Court answering the aforesaid application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, rejected the application filed by the plaintiff and declined to grant any injunction in terms of its order dated 07-03-2024. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the refusal to favour an order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, preferred an appeal before the 1^st Appellate Court in M.A.No.24 of 2024. The 1^st Appellate Court grants an interim order of injunction, by upturning the order passed by the trial Court. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioners/defendants 3 to 5 in O.S.No.1255 of 2023.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners’ Sri C. Shankar Reddy vehemently submits that the order of the 1^st Appellate Court is without affording appropriate opportunity to the petitioners. The 1^st Appellate Court ignores that in a portion of the suit schedule property there is a family burial ground which is brought to the notice of the Court by producing photographs. The remaining portion is being cultivated by the family of defendants 3 and 4/petitioners. They are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. The 1^st petitioner and another have challenged RTC entries that went against them in Revision Petition No.118 of 2024 before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner refused to grant an interim order of stay and the 1^st petitioner aggrieved thereby has preferred Writ Petition No.11630 of 2024 which is pending, with no stay operating in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel would thus contend that the petitioners’ rights be protected, as protected by the trial Court and the order of the 1^st Appellate Tribunal be set aside or status quo qua the suit schedule property be maintained by parties till the disposal of the suit.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri M.B.Chandrachooda would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the petitioners have no right over the suit schedule property and 1^st respondent/plaintiff is not using