Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ramachandra D.Huddar
R. Nagaraj, S/O Sri. M.K. Radhakrishna Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Bhagyamma, D/O Late Sri. Chikka Chennappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges a temporary injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiff established rights through prima facie case. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. balance of convenience favors plaintiff. (Para 10 , 12 , 15) |
| 4. injunction preserves legal rights pending litigation. (Para 13 , 14 , 21) |
| 5. no merit found in the appeal. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC , 1908 by the appellant who was arrayed as 14th defendant in O.S.No.40/2017 before the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The appeal challenges the interlocutory order dated 21.12.2018 passed on I.A.No.1 whereby the trial Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein), restraining the appellant and certain other defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit.
2. The appellant has contended in the memorandum of appeal that, the trial Court's decision is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. The appellant has sought to persuade this Court that, the order of temporary injunction is unsustainable in law and on facts, as the plaintiff
Temporary injunctions require a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, ensuring parties' rights are preserved during litigation.
Joint ownership requires the consent of all co-owners for any valid transfer of property; unilateral actions may violate legal rights and warrant protective relief in pending civil suits.
Court affirmed that in interlocutory applications for injunction, plaintiffs must demonstrate a prima facie case and balance of convenience, reinforcing the discretion of trial courts in such matters....
The preservation of property through a temporary injunction is essential to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and protect the interests of parties during ongoing litigation.
The court reaffirms that the grant of temporary injunctions requires established criteria including prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm; undue delay undermines claims for u....
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....
Court must grant injunction to protect possession when a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm are established.
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
