IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
G. Roopa, W/o. Sri Padmanabha N. – Appellant
Versus
Ankush Dadha, S/o. Sri. M. Maher Dadha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
The present appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff questioning the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.712/2024 dated 14.10.2024, by the Court of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore, whereby the trial Court has directed both the parties to maintain status quo until disposal of the suit.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the plaint 'B' schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants and one Sai Durga developers have entered into a Joint Development Agreement (herein after referred to as 'JDA' for short) on 17.02.2017 on the land belonging to the defendants. There are four flats were constructed as Flat Nos. 105, 106, 107 and 108. As per the terms of the JDA agreement, 50% of the flats belonged to defendants and remaining 50% to the developer. Accordingly, Flat Nos.105 and 108 falls to the share of the defendants and Flat Nos.106 and 107 falls to the share of developer. The said developer has so
Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others
The court emphasized that a plaintiff must demonstrate prima facie ownership, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm to secure a temporary injunction.
The High Court ruled that the necessity for essential services justifies the use of a common property passage, overriding temporary injunction constraints improperly imposed by the Trial Court.
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....
Temporary injunction – For the purpose of claiming relief of interim injunction of restraining defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment, one has to prima facie, establish po....
Defendants, who file a counter claim against the plaintiff, can maintain an application for temporary injunction against the plaintiff. Additionally, the court may injunct the plaintiff to maintain s....
Joint family properties must be protected in partition suits, ensuring the rights of co-sharers against potential losses during ongoing legal disputes.
Point of law: If an injunction is obtained falsely stating that High Court has refused to grant an injunction and when the same is also not considered on main and it will be considered along with mai....
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 party seeking a temporary injunction must establish lawful possession, a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Mandatory injunctions require clear evidence of possession rights; mere claims of permissive possession undermined by admissions establishing tenant status.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.