Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23947

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
M ANAND S/O MUNIYAPPA – Appellant
Versus
SMT. N. R. DIVYA W/O K KIRAN – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6651 OF 2024 | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6655 OF 2024 | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6667 OF 2024 | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6671 OF 2024 | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6688 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. RAJENDRA M S.
For the Respondents: SRI. RAVINDRANATH M., SRI. J.C. RAMESH AND SRI. E. KIRAN KUMAR

A temporary injunction granted in a land dispute is justified if a prima facie case exists and potential injury to the plaintiffs is evident.

Headnote:(A) CPC - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - Temporary injunction - Plaintiffs claimed land purchase from T.K.Kemparaju in 2003 and alleged false land claims by the defendant - Trial Court granted temporary injunction - Court found that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and potential injury without an injunction - The order of temporary injunction was justified and upheld. (Paras 2-4)

(B) Appeal - The appeals were dismissed as the temporary injunction was deemed appropriate during the trial stage, indicating no imminent need to vacate it. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-defendant questions the order of temporary injunction granted in ongoing land dispute suits claiming property rights based on their 2003 purchase.

Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs are identified to have purchased prior to the defendant’s claims, fulfilling the prima facie requirement.

Issues: Whether the temporary injunction was justified given the competing claims of land ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the plaintiffs have maintained a valid claim as they purchased the property before the defendant, confirming the necessity of the injunction to avoid injury.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appeals relating to injunctions based on possession claims. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the court affirmed the trial court's grant of the temporary injunction. (Para 4)

ORAL JUDGMENT

All the appeals are filed by the appellant-defendant questioning the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.Nos.6044/2023, 5868/2024, 5871/2023, 5870/2023 and 5869/2023 respectively dated 23.07.2024 by the Court of XV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru.

2. In all the appeals, the suits were filed for permanent injunction by claiming that they have purchased the sites in the year 2003 from one T.K.Kemparaju through registered sale deed dated 06.12.2003 and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is the allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendant is falsely claiming the land, in which the plaintiffs have situated. Therefore, filed the suits and the trial Court has granted order of temporary injunction. 3. It is the case of the defendant that the defendant has purchased 2 acres of land in Survey Nos.

MFA No. 6667 of 2024 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS

124 and 125 through registered sale deeds in the year 2003 after obtaining permission from the Government. Therefore, the defendant prays to vacate the order of temporary injunction.

4. The trial Court has assigned reasons that the plaintiffs have purchased the sites in the year 2003 through registered sale deeds from one T.K.Kemparaju. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant has other land that is not concerned with the land in which the plaintiffs have purchased the sites. It is the case of the plaintiff that now the defendant has been trying to enlarge his lands apart from the extent of land purchased. When this being the fact, the identity of sites and lands are in dispute and it is triable issue before the Court. But the plaintiffs have prima facie case that they have purchased the sites in the year 2003 prior to the purchase of lands by the defendant. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in granting the order of temporary injunction as the plaintiffs have made a prima facie case and that is lies in favour of MFA No. 6667 of 2024 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS the plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in holding that if the temporary injunction is not granted that would cause injury/loss to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the order of temporary injunction is justified.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document