Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3839
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. NATARAJAN, J
SRI B.S. MANJUNATH – Appellant
Versus
SMT. LEELA – Respondent
MFA 8388 of 2023
A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm to obtain an injunction; failure to do so results in denial of the injunction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 and Order 43 Rule 1(r) - Appeal against injunction order - The trial court granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from interfering with the property. The defendant contended that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience. The court found that the plaintiff's vendor had lost title to the property, and the injunction was improperly granted. (Paras 1, 6, 12, 13)
(B) Injunction - Requirements for granting - The court emphasized that a plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm to obtain an injunction. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a property purchased from a vendor, while the defendant asserted prior ownership through a cooperative society. The trial court granted an injunction to the plaintiff, which the defendant appealed.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the plaintiff did not have a prima facie case and that the defendant's claim was stronger.
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, and whether the trial court's order warranted interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff's vendor had lost title to the property, and thus the plaintiff could not claim rights over it. The injunction was set aside as the plaintiff failed to meet the necessary criteria.
Result: Appeal allowed; injunction set aside.
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant under order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC for setting aside the order passed by the Addl. City Civil and session Judge, Bangalore in OS.No.7897/2022 for having granted injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC restraining the appellant/defendant from interfering with the schedule property and rejecting the I.A.No.2 filed by the appellant for granting injunction in respect of written statement/counter claim property.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties are retained for the sake of convenience.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order passed by the trial court is erroneous and perverse. There is no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff. There is no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and if injunction is not granted, no irreparable loss would cause to the plaintiff. Such being the case, granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff does not arises. On the other hand, the defendant made out prima facie case in his favour for granting injunction and defendant is in possession of the schedule property. Such being the case, question of rejecting the application of the defendant does not arises. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the trial court and contended that the plaintiff purchased the schedule property from the vendor Sri.H.Lankappa under sale deed dated 5.12.2022 the same was reflected in the encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub Registrar. The property standing in the name of her vendor there were no transactions from 1989 to 2022. It is further contended that the vendor of the plaintiff had originally purchased the land of 2 acres and 30 guntas in Sy.No.238 of Halagevaderahalli village from one Hanumanthraju , gajendra and narayana i.e, sons of H.Hanumantharaju C., through registered sale deed. The daughters of the H.Hanumantharaju C filed suit for partition which came to be decreed and in the FDP proceedings 1 acre 13 guntas fallen to the share of the daughters which was re-numbered as Sy.No.238/2 and remaining 1 acre 13 guntas continued in the name of vendor as Sy.No.238/1. The land got converted and suit schedule property was one of the site carved out of the said survey number and the name of the vendor is appearing in the BBMP records and even BBMP has issued khatha. The plaintiff purchased the schedule property but the defendant trying to interfere in the schedule property illegally contending that the defendant has purchased property on 03.12.2012 is utterly false. Therefore, considering the prima facie case, the trial court rightly granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff and rejected the contention of the defendant and there is no need to interfere in the said order. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal.
6. Having heard the arguments perused the records, the point that arises for my consideration are,
1. Whether the plaintiff has made out prima facie case, in his favour?
2. Whether plaintiff was put into hardship and loss if injunction is not granted in view of the rival claim by the defendant in his application for granting injunction?
3. Whether the balance of convenience lies in whose favour?
4. Whether order of trial court calls for interference?
7. Perused the records and impugned order which is under challenge. The plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property which is narrated as under
"Vacant sites bearing No.3625/238/1/15 in ward No.160 of BBMP Rajarajeshwari Nagar, situated at Halagevaderahalli measuring East and West 50 ft and North to South 45 ft measuring 2250 sq.ft. bounded on the,
East by : Vacant site No.16
West
