Court emphasized that maintaining status quo in property disputes prevents complications, highlighting the necessity of establishing prima facie case and balance of convenience for interim relief.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is instituted under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"), assailing the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned 17^th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.6132/2023, whereby the learned trial judge allowed the interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and directed both the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit.

2. The factual matrix, in brief is that, the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the said suit, instituted a suit in O.S.No.6132/23 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants. In the said suit the respondent contends that, he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule 'B' property, which is part of a larger extent of land allegedly purchased by him from one Rukmini and Ramamurthy, who were the legal representatives of the original grantee by name R.K. Muttukrishna. It is the specific case of the respondent that, the said sale transaction was effected by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 25.11.2013. Alleging interference by the appellants, the respondent approached the trial Court and sought an order of temporary injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering with his possession.

3. The appellants, who are arrayed as defendants before the trial Court, entered their appearance and filed their detailed objections resisting grant of any interim relief. The appellants claim ownership and possession of the properties bearing Survey Nos. 26/1, 26/2 and 26/3, situated in the same locality, including the suit scheduled lands. It is their case that, they derive title through a valid grant by the Competent Authority, reflected in the grant certificate bearing MR No. 16/78-79, and that their rights have been duly adjudicated and affirmed by this Court in RFA No. 649/2004 and 650/2004 , whereby Smt. Narayanamma, under whom the appellants claim, was declared as the absolute owner.

4. The appellants further contended that the Sale Deed executed by Rukmini and Ramamurthy in favour of the respondent is not legally tenable. As the said predecessors themselves had no right, title or interest in the subject property. They pointed out that the Land Tribunal, in LRF No. 4079/1975-76, had already re-granted the lands in favour of Meenakshamma, thus rendering any claim of Rukmini and Ramamurthy to the property void ab initio. Additionally, the appellants placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14452/2011 , whereby the mutation entry effected in favour of Rukmini and Ramamurthy (vide MR No. 3/2004-05) was quashed, further affirming that the said individuals had no lawful title to pass on to the respondent.

5. On the other hand, the respondent maintained that his title flows from a registered document and that the very fact that the appellants had earlier based litigation on O.S.No.25452/2008 instituted by Rukmini and Ramamurthy, which was dismissed, estops them from now raising any contentions against respondent's title. The respondent's stand was, that his possession was lawful and that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the status quo until the main suit was adjudicated.

6. Upon considering the rival pleadings and perusing the documents produced by both the parties, the learned trial Judge was of the view that, the matter involved complex questions of title which would not be conclusively determined at the interim stage. The trial Court observed that the materials produced pri