Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Balaji Plantations SLN Division, Represented By Its Managing Partner Smt. Malavika Hegde – Appellant
Versus
K.N. Rathnakar, S/o. Nagappagowda – Respondent
ORDER :
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner in W.P.No.20910 of 2023/plaintiff is before this Court calling in question an order dated 28-02-2023 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru insofar as it orders status quo in favour of the respondent in M.A.No.13 of 2022. The petitioner in W.P.No.5972 of 2023/defendant is calling in question order dated 22-04-2022 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.364 of 2021 and the order passed by the Civil Judge which is challenged by the plaintiff referred to supra.
2. Heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. In this order parties would be referred as per their rank in the original suit. The plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are said to be comprising of coffee estate, agricultural land and other trees, which according to the averment in the petition are all valuable. There is also a house constructed in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff had raised
The appeal emphasizes that an appellate court should not override a trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless exercised arbitrarily, as seen in the established possession rights of the ....
A decree would be binding on the parties to the suit and not on third party.
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.
The court emphasized that a party seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm, with a failure to do so justifying dismissa....
Discretion exercised by the Court below in passing the order under challenge is neither arbitrary, capricious nor perverse and it is adhering to the settled principles of law regulating grant of refu....
A suit for injunction is not maintainable without a concurrent suit for declaration of title when ownership is disputed, emphasizing the necessity of primary evidence in possession claims.
A plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential hardship to obtain a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
A suit for permanent injunction, without seeking a declaration of title, is not maintainable when ownership is disputed; a comprehensive claim is required to address possession and title.
Unregistered relinquishment deeds cannot establish ownership, and adverse possession claims require clear proof of exclusive possession and continuity which the plaintiff failed to provide.
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
