Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 705
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. NATARAJAN, J
CHINNAKKAIAH – Appellant
Versus
SRI.RAJENDRA BABU N – Respondent
MFA 321 of 2025
A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for injunction, including ownership, while defendants can rely on possession and documentation to challenge such claims.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Appeal against injunction - Defendants challenged the trial court's order granting injunction to the plaintiff, claiming ownership and possession of the property - The plaintiff claimed ownership through a gift deed, but failed to substantiate the title - The defendants provided evidence of long-standing possession and legal rights over the property. (Paras 5, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Injunction - Prima facie case - The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not demonstrate a prima facie case for injunction, while the defendants proved their possession and legal standing. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with his possession of the property, claiming ownership through a gift deed, while the defendants asserted their rights based on historical ownership and possession.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendants had established their possession and legal rights over the property, and the trial court's order was deemed perverse and capricious.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for injunction, the balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and the appropriateness of the trial court's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership and that the defendants had a stronger claim based on possession and documentation.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the injunction granted by the trial court is set aside.
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendants under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC for setting aside the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the IX Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-5) in O.S. No.2172/2024 for having granted injunction against respondent-plaintiff.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent.
3. The appellants were defendants and respondent was plaintiff before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is retained to as before the trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the illegally made trenches and foundation on the western side of the schedule property on the ground that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the schedule property bearing BBMP Khatha No.538A/550/51/871/87, measuring East to West 46 feet, North to South 142 feet, measuring 6532 Sq. Ft., presently falls within the limits of BBMP Ward No.193-Arakere Sub Division, which is a portion of survey No.87/1 of Hulimavu Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
5. It is contended that the plaintiff acquired property through a gift deed dated 02.09.2023 executed by N. Savithramma in favour of plaintiff and the same was registered before the Sub-Registrar and he was put in possession and enjoyment of schedule property. After acquisition, the plaintiff put up a compound wall covering schedule property and got transferred the khatha in his name and paid taxes. It is further contended that originally, K.M. Muniramaiah was the owner of the property in survey No.87/1 to an extent of 2 acres 29 guntas acquired the same under sale deed dated 05.05.1946 and he was in possession of the same. It is further contended that earlier, the said land belonged to Patel Hanumappa and family members, who mortgaged the said property to Sri Kodandaramaswamy Co-operative Society. Since Patel Hanumappa had not repaid loan amount, the property was purchased by the said society on 16.10.1939 and it was sold to one B.M. Muniswamapaa and Appareddappa, who in turn sold the same to K.M. Muniramaiah on 05.05.1946 and he was put in exclusive possession exercising all the rights. In the circumstances, the said Patel Hanumappa and family members divested their so called rights and ownerships and also possession over the said properties. The defendants claimed right through Patel Hanumappa. It is contended that after demise of K.M Muniramaiah, the property devolved upon his grandson Jayanth as per bequeath made by Muniramaiah. After the demise of Jayanth, it was devolved upon Savithramma, who is the only legal heir of Jayanth. Later, the property was gifted by the said Savithramma to the plaintiff. But the defendants were claiming and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for injunction and the same was granted by the trial Court, which is under challenge.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the order of the trial Court is perverse and capricious. The suit filed by the plaintiff is a created document for the purpose of injunction in the name of Savithramma who created gift deed dated 02.09.2023. On the alleged gift deed executed by Savithramma, the plaintiff created ‘B’ Khatha on 14.09.2023 to the extent of 6532 sq. ft. to deprive the right of the appellant in survey No.87/1A1, which was acquired by the husband of appellant No.1 measuring 9 guntas of land and he was in its exclusive possession. The plaintiff intentionally created a document and paid taxes to deprive the right of the defendants. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the documen
