Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J.
Sharadamma – Appellant
versus
S. Sudhananda Reddy – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4232 of 2018
Decided on 24.5.2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 – Injunction – Rejection of application seeking interim injunction – Entire case of plaintiffs/appellants is based on revenue records – Appellants based on some of records have tried to make out a ground that they have got a better case, but there is no sufficient material evidence to prove their contention – Appellants have failed to prove prima facie case – Findings given by trial Judge that plaintiffs have not made prima facie case and have failed to prove balance of convenience and comparative hardship, are proper and justified – There are no valid grounds to interfere with impugned order – Miscellaneous First Appeal dismissed.
Held: The entire case of the plaintiffs/appellants is based on revenue records. According to the appellants the property purchased by their ancestor by name Muniswamappa was 1 acre in Sy.No.37/1, through Sale Deed dated 29.06.1959. But, the Survey number mentioned in the said Sale Deed was wrong, instead of Sy.No.44, it is mentioned as Sy.No.37/1. Till date, no efforts are done for rectification of the survey number in the Sale Deed.
The Appellants based on some of the records have tried to make out a ground that they have got a better case, but there is no sufficient material evidence to prove their contention. In the instant case, the Appellants have failed to prove prima facie case. Thus, the decisions relied on by the counsel for the appellants are not aptly applicable to the facts of this case.
On going through the documentary evidence placed on record by both parties and on reappreciation, this Court is of the view that the findings given by the trial Judge that plaintiffs have not made prima facie case and have failed to prove the balance of convenience and comparative hardship, are proper and justified. There are no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order. (Paras 12, 20 and 21)
Result: Miscellaneous First Appeal dismissed.
The legal document pertains to a civil property dispute involving the plaintiffs/appellants and the defendants/respondents. The core issue revolves around the ownership and boundary claims of a specific property in Bengaluru South Taluk, with the plaintiffs asserting ownership based on revenue records and a sale deed, and the defendants claiming rights derived from family partition and subsequent legal proceedings.
Key points from the judgment include:
The plaintiffs' case is primarily based on revenue records and a sale deed that erroneously mentioned the survey number as Sy.No.37/1 instead of Sy.No.44. Despite this discrepancy, the plaintiffs contend that the boundaries and boundaries' descriptions support their claim (!) (!) .
The trial Court initially granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the property. However, this order was later vacated after the defendants filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which were rejected by the trial Court, leading to the appeal (!) (!) .
The defendants' case is that their ancestor purchased property in Sy.No.37/1, and the property in question was acquired through family partition and subsequent government acquisition proceedings. They also argue that the revenue records and recent orders support their claim of ownership over the property in Sy.No.44, which they assert is distinct from what the plaintiffs claim (!) (!) .
The appellate Court examined the documentary evidence, including sale deeds, revenue records, and orders passed by authorities, and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that the property in question was the same as that purchased in Sy.No.37/1. The Court noted discrepancies in the revenue records, the lack of efforts to rectify survey numbers, and the fact that the earlier orders relied upon by the plaintiffs were not final or conclusively established their claim (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the decision of the trial Court was justified in concluding that the plaintiffs did not prove a prima facie case, nor did they establish that the balance of convenience or the comparative hardship favored granting an injunction (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the appellate Court dismissed the miscellaneous first appeal, affirming the trial Court's order and holding that there were no valid grounds to interfere with the original decision (!) (!) .
In summary, the Court upheld the rejection of the interim injunction application, reaffirmed the importance of clear documentary evidence, and emphasized that the plaintiffs' reliance on revenue records and a sale deed with survey number discrepancies was insufficient to establish their claim. The decision underscores the necessity of proving prima facie case, balance of convenience, and hardship when seeking injunctive relief in property disputes.
JUDGMENT
Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J.—Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant-s and the respondents, heard arguments on merits for final disposal.
2. The appellants are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. MFA is filed by them challenging the rejection of I.As.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
3. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Court below.
4. The facts briefly stated are that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property bearing sy.No.44 (New Sy.No.44/2, 44/7 measuring 1 acre situated at Konappana Agrahara in Bengaluru South Taluk. The father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and grand father of other plaintiffs namely Muniswamappa had purchased a suit property under the registered sale deed 29.06.1959. After the demise of Muniswamappa, his only son Narayanappa i.e., the husband of the plaintiff No.1 acquired the said property through a Will dated 05.10.1988. After the demise of said Narayanappa the plaintiffs being wife and children have become the owners of the property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Even though the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 had purchased 1 acre land in Sy.No.44 of Konappana Agrahara, the survey number of said 1 acre of land was wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.37/1, but the boundaries of the said 1 acre of land are correctly mentioned in the sale deed. By taking undue advantage of the error crept in mentioning the survey number in registered sale deed dated 29.06.1959, the defendant-respondents 1 to 5 got their names entered in the mutation register and consequent entries are also carried out in the record of rights in respect of suit schedule property. Since there was a interference by the defendants and also the dispute with regard to entries in the revenue records, the appellants filed the suit for declaration and injunction and subsequently, amendment was done for seeking relief for possession of the schedule property.
5. The plaintiffs/appellants had filed I.A.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction against the defendants/ respondents. Initially the trial Court had granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants/ respondents 1 to 6 from alienating and encumbering the suit schedule property. On appearance, the defendants filed I.A. Nos.1 to 4 for vacating the order of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. On hearing both parties, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs/appellants were rejected and I.A.no.3 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC was allowed. The exparte order of temporary injunction granted on 06.08.2016 was vacated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs/appellants have preferred this appeal.
6. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiffs have purchased property bearing No.37/1, not the suit schedule property. The grand father of defendant Nos.1 and 5 namely Nanjappa had acquired different portions of the property in Sy.No.44 of Konappana Agrahara under registered sale deed dated 17.02.1964 and subsequently in a family partition 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.44 was allotted to the share of Seenappa i.e., father of the defendant Nos.1 and 5. During the phodi proceedings, it was noticed that actual extent of land allotted to share of Seenappa in the family partition deed dated 8.8.1966 is 25 guntas and not 17 guntas, subsequently, out of 25 guntas, 24 guntas land in Sy.No.44 (New Sy.no.44/7 was allotted to the share of defendant No.1 and the remaining extent of 1 gunta (New Sy.No.44/2) was allotted to share of defendant No.5. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 got converted the 16 guntas of land out of 24 guntas in Sy.No.44/7 into non agriculture and entered into development agreement with defendant No.6. The defendants have already put up construction of apartments in the said land by investing huge amount and also incurring loan. The property said to have been purchased by the p
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
