Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10809
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
SHARADHAMMA W/O. LATE KARIYANNA – Appellant
Versus
KENDRA UPADHYAYARA SANGHA – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1118 OF 2025 (CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. V. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL A/W, SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI
For the Respondents: SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm for granting a temporary injunction, reinforcing the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 4 - Appeal against dismissal of temporary injunction and vacating of status quo - Plaintiffs claim ownership based on prior decrees; defendants assert valid title through registered sale deeds - Court found no prima facie case for plaintiffs; status quo vacated. (Paras 1, 4, 11, 32)
(B) Principles of injunction - A party must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury to obtain a temporary injunction. (Paras 11, 32)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs challenged the trial court's dismissal of their application for temporary injunction, asserting ownership over the suit property based on historical deeds, while defendants claimed valid title through subsequent transactions.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found that plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case, and the construction by defendants was permitted to continue as it was subject to the result of the suit.
Issues: The court addressed whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for injury if the injunction was not granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction, and the transactions made during the pendency of the suit were subject to the outcome of the litigation, affirming the principle of lis pendens as outlined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs appeal against trial court's order on injunction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiffs claim ownership of disputed property. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court assesses prima facie case and balance of convenience. (Para 11 , 18 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. plaintiffs argue for temporary injunction based on prior rulings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. defendants assert bona fide ownership and construction rights. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 30) |
| 6. doctrine of lis pendens and its implications on property transfer. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 29) |
| 7. trial court's dismissal of injunction application is upheld. (Para 32 , 33) |
CAV JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 09.01.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC by the plaintiffs and defendants respectively in O.S.No.5748/2024 by the Court of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.No.3), thereby, I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is dismissed and I.A.No.2 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC is allowed. Consequently, the order of status-quo granted on 14.08.2024 is vacated.
2. The rank of the parties is referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court for easy reference and convenience.
3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of declaration that the registered lease-cum-sale agreement dated 31.08.1999, sale deed dated 14.11.2002, registered sale deed dated 26.07.2017 and registered sale deed dated 28.06.2024 are illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs and consequently, for the relief of permanent injunction.
4. The plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for an order of temporary injunction by making out the case that one Kuntaramaiah and Siddaramaiah are own brothers.
Kuntaramaiah has a daughter by name Gangamma and Siddaramaiah has three sons namely Ramaiah, Siddappa and Nanjappa and a daughter by name Putta Siddamma. The said Gangamma succeeded the estate of Kuntaramaiah after his death in respect of land in Survey No.1/5 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas and Survey No.1/7 measuring 00-28 guntas situated at Nagarabhavi village. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property No.145 measuring 30x40 is formed in Survey No.1/5. When this being the fact, the children of Siddaramaiah namely Ramaiah, Siddappa and Nanjappa and a daughter Putta Siddamma had executed General Power of Attorney and agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.1 - Kendra Upadhyayara Sangha.
5. The said defendant No.1 based on the above sale deeds started interference with the possession of Gangamma and accordingly, she filed the suit in O.S.No.2443/1984 for the relief of declaration to declare that she is the owner and having title in respect of lands in Survey Nos.1/5 and 1/7 and the said suit was decreed in her favour. The said judgment and decree was challenged before this Court in RFA.No.671/2005 and this Court allowed the said appeal and dismissed the suit. It is challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.28193/2024 and Special Leave Appeal (c) No.19216/2024 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order of status quo. When this being the fact, it is submitted that defendant Nos.2 to 4 colluded with each other, created some documents and now defendant Nos.4 to 6 have purchased the schedule property and tried to put up construction. Therefore, with these facts pleaded in the plaint and in the application, prayed for grant of an order of temporary injunction.
6. On the other hand, it is the case of defendant Nos.4 to 6 that suit schedule property No.145 is formed in survey No.1/2 and therefore, it is not the subject matter in O.S.No.2443/1984. The land in survey No.1/2 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas was sold by the plaintiffs’ ancestors under the registered sale deed dated 18.05.1966. The plaintiffs do not kn
