Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR: J
Suresh Nanwani S/o Late Gopal Da Nanwani – Appellant
Versus
Santhosh Raj Urs S/o Saroja R. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
1. Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The defendant (appellant herein) in O.S.No.54/2025 has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 18.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.54/2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Devanahalli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is allowed restraining the defendant or anybody acting or claiming through him from causing obstruction or interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land.
3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
4. It is the case of the plaintiffs/respondents that they have jointly purchased the suit schedule land from previous owners through a registered sale deed dated 25.11.2024. The land bearing Sy.No.155/1 was totally measuring 05 acre 04 guntas. Out of
A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
In claims for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must sufficiently prove exact boundaries of the property in dispute; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
A plaintiff with clear title and possession can seek an injunction against interference, even in the face of disputed title, provided they substantiate their claims with appropriate evidence.
A plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case and balance of convenience to obtain a temporary injunction, which was not established in this case.
A vendor cannot sell land they do not own; a suit for injunction is not maintainable without a declaratory relief establishing ownership.
The grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary remedy and must be based on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lan....
An individual can only convey as much land as they legally own, with revenue entries providing presumptive evidence but not definitive ownership against established deeds.
A claimant must establish legal ownership to obtain an injunction; granting an injunction based on a dismissed declaration suit is contrary to established legal principles.
The plaintiff must provide clear documentary evidence to substantiate claims of ownership over land and its precise boundaries. Without such evidence, claims may be dismissed.
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
