To grant a temporary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable hardship, with valid documentation supporting their claim.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

This Misc.First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC, 1908 is directed against the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the learned 11^th City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH No.8) in Os no.4802/2023, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the appellant as plaintiff's application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction.

2. The facts in brief are that; the appellant herein who was the plaintiff before the trial Court instituted OS No.4802/2023 seeking decree of permanent injunction against defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property comprises of a commercial building bearing PID No.2-151-41, Site No.6, BBMP new no. 41, measuring 5524.75 sq. ft. located at MES Road, Bahubali Nagar, Jalahalli, Bengaluru.

3. According to the appellant, the first respondent executed a mortgage cum lease deed dated 6.1.2018 in his favour for a period of eight years on receiving a sum of Rs.25 lakhs, and pursuant to the said agreement, the appellant was put in possession of the suit properties where he established a lodge and restaurant under the name 'B.M.Residency'. The appellant claims to have made considerable investment in establishing the business and to have obtained necessary licences from the food safety and standards authority of India, GST Registration and also paying electricity charges for the aid premises. It was further contended, that on 21.7.2023 and 24.7.2023 the respondents attempted to forcibly dispossess him by disconnecting the electricity and threatening eviction prompting the appellant to seek protection from jurisdictional police who advised him to seek civil remedies.

4. On the strength of above assertions the appellant filed an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing from suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit.

5. The first respondent, although he appeared through counsel, submitted that, he has no objection to the grant of temporary injunction. However, the second respondent contested the suit and filed a detailed written statement. He contended that, he was the registered GPA holder of the first respondent and one Praveen Chand, the co-owner of the property under a GPA dated 21.3.2018. Relying on the said authority, the second respondent had executed a registered sale deed dated 19.8.2021 in favour of M/s.VRR Investments Pvt.Ltd., for a consideration of Rs.4.5 crores pursuant to which, the possession of the suit property was delivered to the purchaser, khata was transferred in the purchaser's name and taxes and electricity bills were paid accordingly.

6. The second respondent alleged that, the mortgage deed dated 6.1.2018 relied upon by the appellant was a forged and fabricated document and created in collusion with one S.S.Lokesh and that the signatures found therein did not belong to the first respondent. Furthermore, it was contended that, the said document was neither registered nor sufficiently stamped was styled as a mortgage deed, making it compulsorily registrable under law.

7. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and examining the documents held that, the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case. The Court observed that, the mortgage deed dated 6.1.2018 was written on Rs.200 stamp paper was unregistered, and was insufficiently stamped. The trial Court placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Miss. Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels vs