Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 36984
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P. Sandesh, J
M. Hemanth Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ramachandraiah – Respondent
M.F.A. NO.5533/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajith A. Shetty
For the Respondents: Jayakumar S. Patil, Monica Patil
An appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's discretionary order granting or refusing a temporary injunction unless the exercise of discretion is arbitrary, perverse, or based on a misapprehension of material facts, especially regarding the identity and possession of disputed property.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Temporary injunction - Interference with possession - Identity of property - Dispute regarding existence of land on the western side of the suit schedule property - Discrepancies in sale deeds boundaries and reliance on revenue sketches - Principles of prima facie case and balance of convenience - Appellate court interference in discretionary orders of trial court - Scope of appeal. (Paras 9, 12, 13, 15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff purchased property measuring 35 guntas and sought a permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant claimed ownership of 1 acre 5 guntas on the western side of the plaintiff's property, asserting interference. The trial court allowed the plaintiff's temporary injunction application and rejected the defendant's counter-claim application, leading the defendant to appeal mainly against the rejection of his injunction plea.
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly compared property boundaries across multiple sale deeds, noting that the defendant's predecessors (his father) did not explicitly retain land on the western side. Photographic and documentary evidence supported the existence of a road separating the properties, creating doubt over the defendant's claim of vacant land on the west.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case for temporary injunction regarding the western portion of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking an injunction must clearly demonstrate ownership and possession; here, the defendant failed to show consistency between his title documents, the physical boundaries, and the claimed location of the property, justifying the refusal of temporary relief.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts, procedural history, and parties' respective claims regarding property ownership and possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. appellate arguments focusing on boundary discrepancies, reliance on sketches, and evidence of physical possession. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of document evidence and physical reality confirms the correctness of the trial court's order. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NOs. 1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.301/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ETC.
THIS M.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.10.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV JUDGMENT
This miscellaneous first appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the order dated 19.07.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and prayed this Court to reject the respondent/plaintiff’s I.A.No.1 and allow the I.A.No.2 filed by the appellant/defendant by setting aside rejection order passed on I.A.No.2.
2. The office has raised the objections to file two separate appeals. Hence, the counsel for the appellant restricted his prayer for rejection of I.A.No.2 which had filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that he had purchased the property to the extent of 35 guntas in Sy.No.70/3B of Srigandadakavalu village which is a converted land for non-agricultural purpose. It is the contention that the total extent of Sy.No.70/3 is 11 acres 15 guntas which was belonged to one B Ramakrishnappa. Out of which, he sold 4 acres of land in favour of Masthigowda @ Chikkanna under a registered sale deed dated 28.03.1975 registered on 15.05.1975. The said Masthigowda is none other than the father of the defendant herein. The defendant’s father alienated 2 acres 35 guntas out of 4 acres under three separate sale deeds in favour of one M Chandrashekar on three bits measuring one acre each on 07.04.1993 and 24.04.1993 and 35 guntas of land on 02.09.1993. The said M Chandrashekar after purchasing the said property, got mutated his name in the revenue records and converted 35 guntas of land for non-agricultural purpose vide order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14.06.2017. The said Chandrashekar sold the said 35 guntas of land in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 23.06.2021. The plaintiff claims that before purchasing the property, he obtained the legal opinion and confirmed the title of his vendor. After purchasing the said property, he is put into the possession and he has got the khata from BBMP on paying taxes regularly. It is also his claim that in order to put up the building for the purpose to set up educational institution as he being educationist obtained the building plan and started earth works. But the defendant who is the son of erstwhile owner tried to interfere with his possession and hence, filed the suit for permanent injunction and inter alia sought for the relief of temporary injunction in I.A.No.1 restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession.
5. The defendant after service of notice, appeared and filed written statement and adopted the same as objections to I.A.No.1. The defendant in his written statement contend that the land bearing Sy.No.70/3 originally there was 14 acres 33 guntas and not 11 acres 15 guntas as contended by the plaintiff. He admitted that his father Masthigowda had purchased 4 acres of land in Sy.No.70/3B under a sale deed dated 28.03.1975. His father sold 2 acres 35 guntas under 3 separate sale deeds dated 07.04.1993, 22.07.1993 and 02.09.1993 in favour of one M Chandrasheka
