Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
Nagamma W/o Late Krishnappa – Appellant
Versus
Munawar @ Munavar S/o Late Bade Sab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding property and encroachment (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court's reasoning for injunction denial (Para 4) |
| 3. parties' arguments on property access (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. criteria for granting temporary injunction (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. construction risks and trial court's finality (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. conclusion and order of the appeal (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff/appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) he Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"), assailing the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned XXVII Addl. City Civil and Session Judge (CCH-09), Bengaluru City passed in O.S. No.160/2025, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed IA No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an order of Temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from putting up further construction over the suit B-schedule property.
2. The suit filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court is one for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in respect of a residential property bearing No.25, measuring 38x48 feet more fully described as A-Schedule property in t
The court clarified that injunction grants depend on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable injury, rejecting the trial court’s basis for denial.
Even a co-sharer may be restrained by temporarily injunction from making construction.
If respondents are allowed to put-up construction by the use of the F.S.I. for the whole of the land including the land involved in dispute, the situation may become irreversible by the time the disp....
A mandatory injunction requires specific issues to be framed regarding disputed existence before being granted.
To obtain interim injunction, a petitioner must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm; failure to satisfy these elements results in dismissal of t....
Failure to establish clear evidence of encroachment precludes granting mandatory injunction.
Temporary injunctions should consider prima facie cases, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
In property disputes, a suit for injunction must assert substantial rights rather than mere possession claims for it to be maintainable.
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
