Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR
Prabhavathi, D/o. Late Shri. P. Balappa Reddy, W/o. Anjinappa – Appellant
Versus
Amitha Reddy, D/o. Late Thippamma And Chikkayellappa – Respondent
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 cl
Court must grant injunction to protect possession when a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm are established.
The court upheld the 1st Appellate Court's grant of temporary injunction to protect the plaintiff's possession of the property pending adjudication, affirming that appellate courts focus on preservin....
A party claiming property possession must substantiate their claims with credible evidence; failing to do so results in dismissal of claims.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo of the property, emphasizing the prevention of irreparable harm and the need for detailed adjudi....
In property disputes, possession follows title; plaintiffs established a prima facie case warranting temporary injunction despite defendants' claims.
In property disputes involving conflicting claims, the court must evaluate the evidence presented to determine the balance of convenience and the necessity for a trial to resolve ownership issues.
In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must prove prima facie possession of the property; the weakness of the defendants' case cannot justify relief.
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
