Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11167
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
JAYA POOJARY – Appellant
Versus
SMT SUMANA N – Respondent
Writ Petition No 5387 of 2024 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Kethan Kumar
For the Respondents: Smt. Archana Murthy P
A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience to obtain a temporary injunction. Discretion exercised by lower courts is not lightly disturbed unless shown to be unreasonable.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Temporary injunction - The petition seeks to quash the trial court's order granting temporary injunction to the plaintiff against the defendants from obstructing agricultural activities on the suit property - Both courts rightly appreciated the material, establishing the plaintiff's prima facie right and title over the property as supported by valid documents including the sale deed and RTC extracts. (Paras 3, 36)
(B) Injunction - Prerequisites for granting temporary injunction include a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and possibility of irreparable harm - The courts determined that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case based on documentary evidence which confirms her title and possession - The balance of convenience favors the plaintiff, as denying the injunction could lead to irreparable harm, affecting her agricultural activities (Paras 17, 19, 24)
(C) Appeal - Discretion of lower court - The appellate court will not interfere with the lower court's discretion unless exercised arbitrarily or perversely, necessitating a reasonable judicial approach - Findings that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favors her uphold the injunction order (Paras 5, 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction over property purchased through a sale deed. The defendants contended they had a share in the property based on familial claims, leading to a dispute that necessitated the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction due to obstruction by the defendants.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld that the plaintiff possesses the title documents and is in possession, with prima facie evidence negating the defendants' claims and establishing the need for temporary relief.
Issues: The primary issues were the rightful ownership and possession of the suit properties, which were disputed by both parties. The court had to determine who had the rightful claim to possession and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff has a prima facie case based on valid title documents supporting her claim of possession, and the balance of convenience favored her granting of the temporary injunction over the defendants' interference claims.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants' obstruction to agricultural activities led to plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff entitled to temporary injunction based on prima facie evidence of title and possession. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. court's discretion is upheld, emphasizing established legal principles for injunctions. (Para 4) |
| 4. overall judgment dismissing the petition, thereby confirming the lower court's decision. (Para 6) |
ORDER
1. This petition by the defendants in O.S. No. 186/2023 and is directed against the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 passed on I.A. No. 2 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, whereby the application I.A. No. 2 filed by the respondent – plaintiff for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners – defendants from causing obstruction to the agricultural development activities by the respondent – plaintiff over the suit schedule property was allowed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court in M.A. No. 25/2023 dated 12.02.2024.
2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners – defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. Along with the suit, the respondent – plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction, the same was contested by the petitioners – defendants and was allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.08.2023. Said order was challenged by the petitioners – defendants by way of an appeal in M.A. No. 25/2023 which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide order dated 12.02.2024 which is assailed in the present petition.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that both the Courts have correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record to come to the prima facie concision that the respondent – plaintiff was entitled to an order of temporary injunction in her favour as against the petitioners – defendants. Upon re-evaluation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity nor the same can be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
4. It is also pertinent to note that while coming at the aforesaid conclusion the tri al Court recorded the following finding:
12. Point No.1: It is the case of the plaintiff that, she has purchased the plaint schedule property for the valid consideration from one Dhanavathi through the registered sale deed. Since from the date of purchase plaintiff as acquired absolute right and title over the suit schedule property and continuing the possession and enjoyment till today. Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any let or hindrance. Based on the registered sale deed RTC and other revenue document got mutated in the name of plaintiff. Suit schedule property consist areca and coconut plantation developed by the plaintiff. To the western side of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No. 14/4 some government land of situated in Sy.No. 66/2 of Perady village. The said adjoining government land forms direct Kumki privilege lands to the suit schedule property. Defendants are residing in a house located in plaintiff kumki property. The property/house site granted in favour of 2nd defendant. Whether the defendants are residing along with their children are entirely distinct and separate from the suit schedule property. Plaintiff is permitted to occupy the 1st defendant in the house situated in the suit schedule property as he is none otherthan her husband brother. Infact plaintiff is pe
