Back
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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellate jurisdiction overview. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of property ownership. (Para 3) |
| 3. parties dispute property ownership. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court considers key questions for injunction. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's finding on ownership and litigation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. disputes involving construction and possession. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. temporary injunction granted. (Para 15) |
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)
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.
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
