Both these appeals arise out of O.S.No.5099/2022 pending

on the file of the XXIV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bangalore.

2. The appellant – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit

against the respondent – defendant for permanent injunction

restraining him from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit

schedule immovable property and from interfering with her

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for

other reliefs. The suit is being contested by the respondent –

defendant who has filed his written statement. In the suit, appellant

filed two applications viz., I.A.1 for temporary injunction restraining

the respondent from interfering with her possession and enjoyment

of the suit schedule property and I.A.2 for ad-interim order of

mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the MS

grill erected over the utility and main door of the suit schedule

property and the CCTV cameras pending disposal of the suit. Both

the applications having been opposed by the respondent, the trial

court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting both I.A.Nos.

- 4 -

1 and 2, aggrieved by which, the appellant is before this Court by

way of the present appeals.

3. MFA No.8710/2022 is directed against the impugned

order dated 29.11.2022 rejecting I.A.No.1, while MFA N.8709/2022

is directed against rejection of I.A.No.2

passed

by

the

trial

court.

4. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant and

learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on

record.

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in

the appeals and referring to the material on record, learned Senior

counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court committed a

grave and serious error of law, fact and jurisdiction in coming to the

conclusion that the appellant had not made out a prima-facie case

and that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the

plaintiff and that she would not be put to irreparable loss and injury

if temporary injunction as sought for in I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 by the

appellant is not granted. It is submitted that the trial court

committed an error in holding that the appellant had admitted that

- 5 -

she was already dispossessed from the suit schedule property as

on the date of institution of the suit. It is further submitted that the

impugned order passed by the trial court is not only contrary to the

material on record but also well settled principles governing grant

of temporary injunction and as such, the impugned order deserves

to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned Senior

counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the following

decisions:-

1.

Shanmukhappa

Revanshiddappa

Keshetti

vs.

Murageppa Chanabasappa Shyabadi - ILR 1964

MYS 670

2.

Dorad Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorabji Warden

ILR 1990 SC 867

3.

Sadashiv Shyama swant (dead) and others vs.

Anita Anant Sawanth - (2010) 3 SCC 385

4.

Appukuttan Niar vs Hydrose - LAW (KER) – 2003 –

8 -65

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would

support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the

appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his

contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed

reliance upon the following decisions:-

1.

Mohd.

Mehtab

Kharn

and

others

vs.

Khushanum IBRAHIM Khan – (2013) 9 SCC 221;

- 6 -

2.

Balasubramanian

and

Anr.

vs.

M.

Arockiasamy ( dead) By Lrs. - AIR 2021 SC 4221;

3.

T.V. Rmakrishna Reddy v. M. Mallappa and

Anrs. - AIR 2021 SC 4293;

4.

Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy

(Dead) By L.Rs and Ors. - AIR 2008 SC 2033;

5.

Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Dead) By LrS. -

AIR ONLINE SC 2022 SC 232;

6.

Maria Margarida Swquieria Fernandes and

Ors vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (Dead ) through L.rs. -

AIR 2012 SC 1727;

7. A Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya RAjakula

Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam,

Rept. by its President. - AIR 2012 SC 2010;

8.

Jharkhand State Housing Board vs Didar

Singh and Anr. - 2019 17 SCC 692;

9.

Babu R