Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.S. KAMAL, J
Takra Naik, S/o Late Nanya Naik – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Naik, S/o Rama Naik – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 32587 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. KARTHIK B.Y, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PRAKASH SALMANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2
The court affirmed that a plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for an interim injunction, which was not met in this instance.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - Interim injunction - Plaintiff sought injunction against defendants claiming title to property based on lineage - Trial Court granted injunction, but First Appellate Court set it aside, finding insufficient prima facie case - The issue of title and possession to be determined at trial. (Paras 4, 10, 14)
(B) Prima Facie Case - The court emphasized that the determination of a prima facie case for an injunction requires sufficient documentary evidence, which the plaintiff failed to provide. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed title to land based on inheritance from his grandfather, while defendants asserted ownership through their grandfather, leading to a dispute over property rights. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case for an injunction, as the evidence presented was insufficient to support his claims. (Paras 10, 15)
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for an injunction and the validity of the claims made by both parties regarding property ownership. (Paras 10, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the First Appellate Court correctly assessed the evidence and concluded that the plaintiff's claims were not substantiated by sufficient documentation, thus justifying the denial of the injunction. (Paras 10, 15)
Result: Petition dismissed; order of the First Appellate Court confirmed.
ORAL ORDER
This petition is by the plaintiff in OS.No.151/2018 pending consideration on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli ('trial Court' for short). By order dated 08.03.2019 the trial Court had granted interim order of injuction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order defendants filed Miscellaneous Appeal in M.A.No.11/2019, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Harapanahalli ('First Appellate Court' for short), in which, the First Appellate Court while allowing said Miscellaneous Appeal and set aside the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff is before this Court.
2. The said suit in OS.No.151/2018 is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein contending;
a) That one Lambani Nanya Naik S/o. Gemya Naik purported to have been granted suit schedule property in Sy.No.3/A/1 measuring 5 acres 16 guntas situated at Kallugudi Village, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davangere District in the year 1966. That ever since the grant so made said Nanya Naik S/o. Gemya Naik was in possession and enjoyment of the said land.
b) That the said Nanya Naik S/o. Gemya Naik had three daughters and the plaintiff is his only son. The said Nanya Naik S/o.Gemya Naik passed away on 02.01.1977, upon his demise revenue records were mutated in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff on 28.04.2016 vide MR.No.H- 29/2015-16.
c) That respondents/defendants having no right in the suit property caused interfering hence, filed suit for declaration of his title and possession and for consequential relief for permanent injunction.
d) An application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC came to be filed along with the plaint.
3. In the written statement to the plaint and the objection statement to the said application defendants apart from specifically denying the case of the plaintiff/petitioner, further contended;
a) That the suit schedule property originally belonged to their grandfather who is known and called as 'HOSHATTI LAMBANI NANYA NAIK S/o. MEGYA NAIK'. That the said Hoshatti Lambani Nanya Naik was also called as 'Lambani Nanya Naik Nichhapura'. That in the hand written RTC extracts his name has been reflected from the year 1968-69 to 2014-15. Since defendants remained in joint family, none of them have sought for change of entries in the revenue records.
b) That the plaintiff without having any concern or relationship with the family of the defendants or of the said Hosahatti Lambani Nanya Naik, taking advantage of similarity in the names put up a false claim and obtained his name entered in the revenue records.
c) That the defendants on learning about the said entries in the revenue records had even initiated proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner seeking restoration of their name in the revenue records by cancellation of the name of the petitioner/plaintiff and the said proceedings have been disposed of with the observation that the claims would be determined subject to the outcome of the pending suit.
d) That another person by name L.NANYA NAIK S/o.HARI NAIK, misusing the circumstances on the basis of false documents obtained financial assistance from ICICI Bank, Davangere for a sum of Rs.3,80,200/- which is entered in the revenue records and the respondents/defendants have issued notice to the said bank in this regard.
4. The Trial Court on consideration of the aforesaid claim and the counter claim by order dated 08.03.2019 allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of CPC (I.A.No.I), restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff until disposal.
5. Being aggrieved, defendants preferred Miscellaneous Appeal in MA.No.11/2019 under Order 43 rule 1(r) of CPC. By the impugned order, the First Appellate Court allowed the said appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same present writ petition by the plaintiff.
6. Learned counsel for the pe
