A plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case and balance of convenience to obtain a temporary injunction, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal order passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.43/2024 dated 29.10.2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Anekal, filed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property and restraining the defendant from putting up any kind of construction towards Northern side of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the property and to declare that the Sale Deed dated 28.04.1997 is obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also for considering the said sale deed dated 28.04.1997.

2. In the said suit, the plaintiff has filed applications I.A.Nos.1 and 2 seeking permanent injunction and for the above stated reliefs. The trial Court has dismissed the said applications on the ground that the defendant is the owner and he is in possession of 85 guntas of land as the plaintiff sold 35.52 guntas of land to the defendant and the defendant has purchased 16 guntas of land on 28.04.1997 taking a view that the defendant has more probability on merits of the case rather than the plaintiff and also evidence of the plaintiff i.e., sale deed dated 28.04.1997 but the suit is filed in the year 2024 challenging the same. Further, it is stated that the plaintiff assigned reason that as per description given in the said sale deed and as well as the sketch produced by the plaintiff, prima facie it appears that the said 16 guntas of land is situated towards the Northern edge of Sy.No.23, the property of the plaintiff is situated towards the Southern edge of Sy.No.23. The middle portion of Sy.No.23 was acquired by the plaintiff under the Gift Deed dated 10.05.2017. The plaintiff has alienated a portion of the said property to the extent of 33.79 guntas in favour of the defendant under the registered sale deed dated 29.11.2019 which is situated towards Northern edge of Sy.No.23. Therefore, when this being the case shown by the defendant that the plaintiff has failed to make out prima-facie case and the balance of convenience, the trial Court dismissed the applications.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the plaintiff and defendant were partners in the Partnership Firm by name M/s. Amex Corporation and this Corporation has purchased 2 acres 16 guntas from one G.Ramaiah. Thereafter, partition took place among the partners and one partner by name Ms. Neelam A Amin, has obtained 1 acre and 06.08 guntas of land i.e., 48% out of 2 acres 16 guntas. The plaintiff has obtained 15% of share in the land which comes to 14.40 guntas of land out of 2 acres 16 guntas. The defendant has obtained share of the land to an extent of 15%, which comes to the extent of 35.52 guntas of land out of 2 acres 16 guntas. It is also stated that the daughter of plaintiff viz., Ms.Neelam Amin, above stated, one of the partner in the firm has gifted her share to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is the case made out by the plaintiff that after selling the land to an extent of 33.79 guntas to the defendant on 29.11.2019 then the plaintiff remained as owner of the land to an extent of 26.69 guntas towards the Southern side. Therefore, when the defendant through a partition has obtained 35.52 guntas of land in the partition and 33.79 guntas of land through sale with the plaintiff and the land retained by the plaintiff to 26.69 guntas and totally it comes to 96 guntas of land. Therefore, there is no land availa