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.

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 total extent, the suit schedule land was re-granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru in case No.79/1959-60 on 31.07.1962 to Sri Appa Shetty who was the father and grandfather of vendors of the plaintiffs. Similarly, remaining 04 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1 of Hunasamaranahalli Village were re-granted to Sri Jayaramaiah S/o Munivenkatappa. Therefore, from the date of re-grant of the land, the vendors of the plaintiffs were in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land.

5. Sri Jayaramaiah and his brother Sri Ramanna have partitioned their 04 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1, including the suit land and got their names mutated to the entire extent of 05 acre 04 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1. The plaintiffs pleaded that the inclusion of 00-30 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1 is illegal. Thereafter, Sri Jayaramaiah and his brother Sri Ramanna sold the entire extent of land 05 acre 04 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 to Smt Kamani R. Ramnani. In turn, Smt Kamani R. Ramnani sold the said land in favour of Smt Asha Pardeshi W/o Ramesh Pardeshi, who is the sister of defendant. Subsequently, Smt Asha Pardeshi W/o Ramesh Pardeshi gifted the entire land of 05 acre 04 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/1 including the suit land of 00-30 guntas to the defendant.

6. Therefore, the plaintiffs approached the Assistant Commissioner, North Division, Bengaluru in appeal RA (YLK) No.402/2022, challenging the revenue entries and seeking a change of katha of 00-30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1. The appeal was allowed and it was stated that subsequent to the survey and haddu bastu, a new Sy.No.151/3 is assigned. Subsequently, the vendors of the plaintiffs were in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land and subsequent to the purchase through registered sale deed dated 25.11.2024, the plaintiffs are in actual possession of the suit land of 00-30 guntas.

7. The defendants, without having any claim, right or interest over the suit schedule land have illegally interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

8. It is the case of the defendant that the total extent of land in Sy.No.155/1 is 05 acre 04 guntas. The defendant admitted that 04 acre 10 guntas were re- granted to the Sri Jayaramaiah and 00-30 guntas of land were re-granted to Sri Ap