Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
G.S.Rajappa S/o. G.D.Siddappa – Appellant
Versus
M.R.Mahadevappa S/o. M.R.Rudrappa – Respondent
ORDER :
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff and learned counsel for respondent-defendant.
2. With consent of learned counsels for parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal.
3. These petitions are arising out of the same suit on two different applications.
4. Parties to the petitions shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
5. In WP.No.29182/2025, the plaintiff has questioned the rejection of his application i.e., I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction against the defendant restraining him, his agents, servants, men etc, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has challenged the said order before the first Appellate Court in M.A.No.1/2022. The first Appellate Court dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court.
6. In WP.No.29398/2025, the plaintiff has questioned the rejection of his application i.e., I.A.No.3 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injuncti
The court upheld the need for a temporary injunction to prevent alienation of property during ongoing litigation, emphasizing protection of legal rights amid ownership disputes.
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.
In property disputes, possession follows title; plaintiffs established a prima facie case warranting temporary injunction despite defendants' claims.
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....
Fraud must be specifically pleaded; actions taken years after an event can amount to a bar by limitation. Courts dismiss vexatious litigations that abuse processes.
In a suit for injunction, failure to specifically deny property description constitutes an admission, supporting the plaintiff's established possession based on a valid Will.
The court established the principle that possession follows title, allowing for an ad-interim injunction to protect a plaintiff's possession of property amid allegations of fraudulent transfer.
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
