Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
G.V. Anjali @ Anjali Garalpad Vadiraj, D/o. Vadiraj Garalpa, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Represented By Her Power Of Attorney Holder Sri Arun Vadiraj Garalpad – Appellant
Versus
Manjunath, C. K., S/o. Sri Kempegowda – Respondent
ORDER :
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
Heard learned counsel Sri.A. Madhusudhana Rao on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff.
2. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondent/defendant, as notice to the respondent/defendant was not served before the trial Court on the application.
3. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he has filed a suit in OS.No.1097/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kanakapura, for the relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs against the respondent/ defendant in respect to the land bearing Survey No. 218/6, measuring 2 acres 27 guntas, along with 5 guntas of kharab land situated at Cheeluru Village, Maralawadi Hobli, earlier Kanakpura Taluk, now Harohalli Taluk.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that a registered deed dated 15.09.2025 came to be executed in favour of the respondent/defendant fraudulently, which is not binding on her, whereas the petitioner/plaintiff was not in India at that time, and she has been residing in the United States of America. She has produced a passport copy to show that she had departed from India on 10.08.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff f
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.
The legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot retrospectively undo a legal status created by a predecessor, and a valid explanation for inaction over a long period is required.
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.
The court found the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint, emphasizing the need for a full examination of the ownership claims rather than dismissing based on presumptive documents.
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 alleging fraud must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable harm to obtain an ad-interim injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure.
In property disputes, possession follows title; plaintiffs established a prima facie case warranting temporary injunction despite defendants' claims.
Court upheld the principle that a party must come with clean hands; concealment of material facts undermines claims for relief.
(1) Injunction is a consequential relief – In a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction, it is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a furth....
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
