Establishing prima facie ownership and the need for temporary injunction in property disputes is crucial; courts must assess evidence and balance convenience effectively.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 08.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.883/2022 by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Tumkuru, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction was dismissed.

2. The rank of the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint averments that the plaintiff has purchased site No.C-8. The defendant is claiming site No.Y-9 formed in Survey No.39/1A at Amarajyothinagara, Tumkuru. One Smt.Lakshmi has purchased site No.Y-10 under the registered sale deed dated 28.03.2005 and katha was mutated in her name. The plaintiff has purchased site No.C-8 under the registered sale deed dated 24.06.2011 and katha was mutated in her name. The aforesaid Smt.Lakshmi instead of putting up construction in her site No.Y-10, but erroneously put up construction on site No.C- 8 belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and said Smt.Lakshmi after coming to know of this fact, mutually entered into an understanding and thereupon, deed of exchange was executed on 22.11.2021 between the plaintiff and said Smt.Lakshmi, wherein the plaintiff has become the owner of site No.Y-10 and said Smt.Lakshmi had become the owner of site No.C-8, wherein Smt.Lakshmi had constructed building. The defendant who is the adjacent owner of site No.Y-9 with the permission of Smt.Lakshmi had put up temporary shed on site No.Y-10 to accommodate his servants with an assurance to dismantle and clear the shed on demand. When this being the fact, the plaintiff after becoming the owner of site No.Y-10 entered into possession of the site and requested the defendant to dismantle the temporary shed put up by the defendant, but the defendant has refused and obstructed the plaintiff’s possession over site No.Y-10. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property i.e., site No.Y-10 and for permanent injunction.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that by virtue of deed of exchange, the plaintiff had become the owner of site No.Y-10, which is adjacent to site No.Y-9 and the defendant is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Site No.Y-10 is formed in Survey No.39/1A measuring 35 x 35 feet and also katha was mutated in the name of plaintiff, but the defendant erroneously claiming that there is no site No.Y-10 existed just to grab the site. When this being the fact, the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application without considering the material produced before the Court. Therefore, prays for grant of an order of temporary injunction.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that site No.Y-10 is not in existence as the boundaries are not tallying. Further the plaintiff has not produced the sale deed for having purchased site No.C-8. Therefore, whatever the deed of exchange, is only an illusionary one. Hence, when there is no prima facie material to show that the plaintiff initially has purchased site No.C-8, therefore, there is no question of deed of exchange between the plaintiff and Smt.Lakshmi and hence, the plaintiff is falsely claiming that she has become the owner of site No.Y-10 and this is correctly appreciated by the trial Court and rightly dismissed the application filed for temporary injunction, which needs no interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

6. Upon hearing the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material produced, the following points arise for my consideration:

i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced bef