Court must grant injunction to protect possession when a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm are established.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

This Court is seized of a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC") which has been instituted by the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in Regular Appeal No. 98/2020, whereby the application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking a temporary injunction against respondents Nos. 9 and 10, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, came to be rejected.

2. The appellants have now approached this Court contending that, the said order is vitiated by serious errors of law and fact and that it disregards the overwhelming material placed before the Court establishing their prima facie title, continuous and undisturbed possession over the suit schedule property for several decades, and the threat of irreparable harm caused by the acts of the contesting respondents, who have sought to interfere with such possession by claiming through a line of title demonstrably lacking in substance and legally untenable.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that, the appeal is filed by appellants in R.A.98/2020. The suit was filed for relief of partition and against the judgment and decree in R.A.No.98/2020 is filed and this impugned order arises on the application filed by the appellants. He would submit that, title of the appellants itself is disputed and now it is seized in the aforesaid regular appeal. During the pendency of the appeal itself there was a purchase of the property by respondent No.15. He would submit that, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the interim application. In support of his submission, he took this Court to various additional documents produced in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that, rights of the appellants kept open as they are legatee or class - 1 heirs. As the Will itself disputed, the purchaser of property has no better title than the family member. He submits that, till today Balappa Reddy has not lost case on merits though there are several proceedings.

4. As against this submission, the learned counsel for the respondents justifies the dismissal of interim application and submits that, the impugned order is a well reasoned order and cannot be interfered with. He too relies upon the additional documents produced and submits that, there is no merit in this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondents have produced various documents in support of their submissions, and they have also furnished the synopsis showing the calendar of events that have taken place with regard to suit schedule properties right from 1982. The counsel for the appellants has produced certain documents along with the I.A. such as photographs showing the work being undertaken on the scheduled property. I have scrupulously perused all the materials placed on record. Though the interim application is filed in the shape of I.A.No.1/2025 seeking temporary injunction, as the appeal itself is heard on its merits, therefore, I.A.No.1/2025 is also heard along with the main appeal.

6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, the origin of the dispute trace back to the year 1952, as per the calendar of events furnished by both the counsels, i.e., when one Peddana @ Maniswami, the patriarch of the family, ac