Challenging order dated 15.12.2022 passed by

Principal Senior Civil Judge an JMFC, Mudhol, in OS

no.171/2021, this appeal is filed.

Appellants

herein

were

plaintiffs

while

respondents here were defendants respectively in

original suit.

OS

no.171/2021

was

filed

for

decree

declaring plaintiffs as joint owners of suit schedule ‘B’

properties and for permanent injunction, restraining

defendants from obstructing or disturbing peaceful

possession and enjoyment of suit properties.

In said suit, plaintiffs filed IA no.4 for

temporary injunction restraining defendant no.1 or any

other

person

authorsied

by

him

from

receiving

compensation amount which would be released from

SLAO, UKP, Jamkhandi, in view of submergence of

- 4 -

portion of suit properties i.e. RS nos.51/1, 51/2 of

Budni K.D., taluk Mudhol during pendency of suit.

In affidavit filed in support of application, it

was stated that after filing of suit, suit lands were

acquired by SLAO, Jamkhandi, for UKP project and

there

was

likelihood

of

defendants

receiving

compensation amount without knowledge of plaintiffs

and if interim injunction were not granted, plaintiff

would suffer irreparable loss and injury and same

would also lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Said

application was opposed.

On

consideration,

trial

Court

framed

following points of its consideration:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs have made out a

prima facie case?

2. Whether the balance of convenience lies in

favour of the plaintiffs?

- 5 -

3. Whether the plaintiffs will be put to hardship

and

irreparable

loss

if

application

is

rejected?

4. What order?

Thereafter, trial court answered points no.1

to

3

in

negative

and

point

no.4

by

rejecting

application.

Assailing same, plaintiffs are in appeal.

9.

Sri

Pavan

B.

Dodatti,

learned

counsel

appearing

of

plaintiffs-appellants

submitted

that

though suit properties were joint family properties,

originally belonging to family propositus Manigeneppa

Huded,

who

had

two

children

Buttappa

and

Sidlingappa. After death of Manige and his children

there was partition between branch of Bhutappa and

branch of Siddalingappa in year 1974 wherein suit

properties were apportioned to share of grand sons of

Siddalingappa. However on ground that one of grand

sons of Siddalingappa consented for entry of name of

defendants to extent of 1/4 share, name of defendants

- 6 -

were entered in revenue records. Immediately after

realising same, suit was filed.

10. In

suit

defendant

no.1

filed

written

statement,

admitted

partition

between

branch

of

Bhutappa and Siddalingappa. However claim was

made on basis of ‘Vardi’ stated to have been given by

Siddalingappa. It was submitted that in view of

admitted partition, there was severance of relationship

and title. Therefore, without registered document,

providing for transfer of title, no claim could be made

merely on basis of Vardi/mutation entries. In view of

same, when plaintiff south for an interim injunction

restraining defendants from receiving compensation,

trial Court was not justified in rejecting it. It was

submitted that rejection was against clear admission

by defendant no.1 and therefore perverse. On above

grounds, sought for setting aside of impugned order

and for allowing IA no.4.

11. Heard

learned

counsel

and

perused

impugned order and record.

- 7 -

12. On perusal of impugned order, it is seen

that after taking note of pleadings and rival contention

, trial Court observed that Land Acquisition Officer in

whose name suit properties were acquitted was not a

party to suit. Further provisions of Land Acquisition

Act,

contemplated

mechanism

for

dealing

with

objections

both

regarding

title

as

well

as

apportionment

of

compensation

on

ground

that

alternative remedy was available trial Court rejected

application.

13. While dealing with application under Order

39 Rule 1 and 2, trial Court would be exercising

discretionary powers. On recognized principles of law.

One such principle is that injunction may not be

granted i