Possession without legal title does not justify the grant of temporary injunction; strict adherence to legal principles is paramount.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellant herein has preferred the present Misc.First appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC , 1908 challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 2.9.2024 passed by the 40^th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-41) in OS No.5669/2024. By the said impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the appellant's application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendants therein who are the respondents in the present appeal from dispossessing her from the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the original suit.

2. The appellant, who was the plaintiff before the trial Court had instituted the suit seeking relief of declaration that, the registered sale deed dated 14.9.2018 executed by the Bengaluru Development Authority (in short `BDA') in favour of respondent no.6 and the possession certificated 19.9.2018 issued to him are not binding upon her to the extent of her possessive rights over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further sought a permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering with her possession or from dispossessing her without following due process of law. In support of grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff contended that, she has been in continuous, peaceful possession and occupation of suit schedule property since the year 2009, wherein, she along with her husband has been engaged in vending tender coconut. She also asserted that, she has been regularly paying ground rent, water tax and other municipal levies to the BDA and the BBMP and that various representations made by her to regularize the property in her favour have remained pending without appropriate consideration.

3. The learned trial Court, upon evaluation of the materials on record and after hearing both the parties concluded that, the appellant had failed to establish any prima facie case in her favour had not shown that balance of convenience was in her favour, and also has not proved that, she would be subjected to irreparable injury if the relief of temporary injunction is not granted. The trial Court found that, the appellant had not produced sufficient documents to substantiate her actual possession of the suit property as on the date of suit and further took note of the fact that, the BDA had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent no.6 and issued a possession certificate thereby, lawfully transferring title and possession.

4. Challenging this reasoning, now the appellant is before this Court contending that, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the long standing possession of the appellant and the fact that, the registered document in favour of respondent no.6 were not binding on her in light of her prior occupation and representations seeking regularization. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that, the order under challenge is contrary to settled principles governing the grant of injunction and resulted in grave injustice to the person in possession without affording an opportunity to protect such possession. He would further submit that, even the plaintiff is branded as rank trespasser, she cannot be evicted without following due process of law.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for contesting respondent and BDA justified the impugned order and the findings thereon. They would submit that, the BDA has allotted the schedule property in favour of respondent no.6 and respondent no.6 is in possession of property by virtue of the possession certificate. This pos