The appellate court found the trial court's grant of a temporary injunction was erroneous due to failure to consider all evidence, establishing the importance of evaluating both parties' claims in injunction matters.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 151 - Appeal against grant of temporary injunction - Plaintiffs sought perpetual injunction claiming ownership of land; defendants contested ownership asserting rights over adjacent property - Trial Court granted injunction based on plaintiffs’ prior possession and ownership - Appellate Court found Trial Court failed to consider defendants' evidence and committed error, resulting in a perverse order. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 45)

(B) Injunction - Grant of temporary injunction requires plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury - Appellate Court emphasized the need for proper evaluation of evidence and the importance of not substituting trial court's discretion unless perverse. (Paras 8, 23, 45)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs, a charitable trust, claimed ownership of land bearing Sy.No.14, asserting defendants interfered with their possession. Defendants contended the plaintiffs were attempting to usurp property where a temple exists, which is not part of the suit land. The Trial Court granted a temporary injunction based on plaintiffs’ possession.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's order was set aside due to failure to consider critical evidence from defendants.

Issues: Whether plaintiffs established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and if the Trial Court's order was perverse.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the Trial Court's failure to consider all documentary materials resulted in a flawed decision, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of evidence in injunction cases.

Result: Appeal allowed; Trial Court's order set aside.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S.No.3397/2024 have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC , in O.S.No.3397/2024 on the file of XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-9), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction was allowed, restraining the defendants, their henchmen, agents or anybody claiming through them from interfering with plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants. It is the case made out by the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.14 to the extent of 2 acre 15 guntas, presently forming part of 5^th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, within the jurisdiction of the BBMP Ward No.174. It is stated that the plaintiffs are a testamentary public charitable trust established under the Will executed by one Sri. Arasoji Rao B. on 17.07.1945. It is alleged that in the plaint that the defendants, without any lawful authority or interest over the suit schedule property have attempted to interfere with the property, asserting that it was gifted to one Sri. Keshav Pai, son of B. Venkatarama Pai by Smt. Mannu Bai, widow of the testator and mother- in-law of V. Ramachandra Rao and Subba Rao along with one A. Sathyanarayana, son of Ramachandra Rao. The said purported Gift Deed was challenged by the trustees in O.S.No.367/1973 (renumbered as O.S.No.402/1980) before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, as being contrary to the intent of the Will. In the said suit, by judgment and decree dated 01.08.1997, the Gift Deed was declared null and void. Thereafter, the appeal preferred before this Court in RFA No.733/1997 was dismissed on 22.08.2013 and the said judgment and decree was confirmed and it attained finality.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have taken possession of the suit schedule property of bearing Sy.No.14 to the extent of 2 acre 15 guntas in Execution Proceedings No.466/1999. It is stated that in the Execution Proceedings No.466/1999, a Court Commissioner was appointed, who demarcated the land and handed it over to the plaintiffs/trust. When this being the fact, the defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit schedule property.

Therefore, the plaintiffs filed suit for perpetual injunction and an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and the Trial Court allowed the said application. Against the said order granting temporary injunction, the appeal is preferred.

4. It is the case of the defendants that the City Improvement Trust Board, Bengaluru (‘CITB’ for short) has allotted Civic Amenity Site (‘CA Site’ for short) No.117, 117A and 117B, on which the Panduranga VittalaTemple exists and it is not part and of the suit schedule land. The defendants are not concerned with the suit schedule land to the extent 2 acre 15 guntas, bearing Sy.No.14 of Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. However, the plaintiffs, under the guise of claiming ownership of the land bearing Sy.No.14 to the extent 2 acre 15 guntas are trying to usurp the Panduranga Vittala Temple, which exists adjacent to the suit schedule land. The plaintiffs wrongly claim that they are owners of the property where the Panduranga Vittala Temple exists as part of the land bearing Sy.No.14 to the extent of 2 acre 15 guntas. But actually, the Panduranga Vittala Temple does not exist within Sy.No.14 to the extent of 2 acre 15 guntas; instead, it exists separately in CA site No.117, which was granted by the then CITB (now Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA)).

5. Further, it is the case of the defendants that in Execution Proceedings No.466/1999, the Court Commissioner has clearly demarcated and identified the land to the ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document