Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24036
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
V SRISHANANDA, J
GIRISH S/O PRAHLAD, CHETAN S/O PRAHLAD – Appellant
Versus
SMT. GAYATHRI OF W/O GURURAJA – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 829 OF 2022 (INJ)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI HARISH KUMAR M.S
For the Respondents: SRI H.S. PRASHANTH
An injunction requires proof of actual possession; absence of possession undermines the plaintiff's suit for injunctive relief.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Injunction - Appeal challenging decree of injunction regarding property ownership - The First Appellate Court confirmed the lower court's decision - Appellants contended lack of possession evidence by the respondent and errors in legal appreciation. (Paras 2.1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11)
(B) Injunction - Legal Principle - Court considers the necessity of actual possession for granting injunctive relief - A suit for injunction is not maintainable in the absence of possession. (Paras 5, 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a decree of injunction confirmed by the First Appellate Court regarding the ownership and possession of the suit property, arguing errors in the appreciation of evidence regarding possession by the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff was recognized as the owner of the suit property based on the registered sale deed, granted possession upon purchase, despite claims of prior possession by the defendant being unsubstantiated.
Issues: 1. Justification of lower courts in affirming plaintiff's possession; 2. Maintainability of the plaintiff's suit for injunction without current possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that actual possession is crucial for maintaining injunctive relief and found that appellants did not establish their claims over the property. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of injunction decree (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. assessment of grounds for appeal (Para 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 3. arguments related to possession and legality of previous judgments. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. ownership and possession based on legal documents (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Appellant in this second appeal is challenging the validity of the decree of injunction passed in respect of the following property in O.S.No.124/2012 confirmed in R.A.No.7/2019.
2. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. Suit property as per schedule to plaint reads as under and hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property.
"zÁªÁ ±ÉåqÀÆ¯ï ¸ÉÆvÀÄÛ ºÉƸÀ£ÀUÀgÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ºÀÄAZÁ ºÉÆç½, ºÀÄAZÁ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.97/1 gÀ°è£À
4 JPÀgÉ 38 UÀÄAmÉ RÄ¶Ì d«ÄãÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ ZÀvÀÄðUÀr:-
¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ : ¸À.£ÀA97/2 ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ : ¸À.£ÀA.96 GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ : ¸À.£ÀA.98 zÀQëtPÉÌ : ¸À.£ÀA.94"
2.2. A suit for permanent injunction came to be filed in respect of the aforesaid property contending that the vendor of the plaintiff land has been granted land by the Government by Grant Order dated 05.09.1981 vide Ex.P.7.
2.3. After the non-alienation period, the schedule property was sold by the grantee in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was also put in possession of the property and he was in possession of the property.
2.4. When the defendant tried to interfere with the schedule property, plaintiff approached the civil Court to protect his lawful possession of the schedule property.
3. Suit on contest came to be decreed by holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property and there was no interference by the defendant.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.7/2019.
5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of factual and legal aspects of the matter had dismissed the appeal of the defendant and confirmed the injunction decreeing in favour of the plaintiff.
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court in this appeal on following grounds and substantial questions of law:
"GROUNDS:
• The judgments of courts below are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The entire judgments and decree of courts below are manifestly illegal and liable to be set aside. The courts below erred in not considering that the respondent was failed to prove that she was put in actual possession over the suit schedule on the date of execution of sale deed.
• The courts below erred in not considering that the earlier owner was not in possession over the suit schedule property. The factum of possession of earlier owner has been disproved by the admission of PW2 in his evidence. The Pw2 has clearly admitted that he was not in possession over the suit schedule property. Hence it is clear that the actual possession has not been handed over by the earlier owner to the plaintiff on the date of execution of sale deed. This aspect has not been considered by the courts below.
• The judgments of courts below erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff/respondent is in possession of the suit schedule properties. The courts below failed to appreciate the when the earlier owner was not in possession over the suit schedule property, then the question of handing over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/respondent will not arise. This aspect has been lost sight by the courts below. The inference of the courts below is against the law and liable to be set-aside.
• The courts below failed to appreciate the documentary evidence of record. The documents produced by both the parties clearly reveals that the defendants/appellant are in possession over the suit schedule property and the plaintiff. The said documentary evidence has not been appreciated by the courts below in a proper prospective.
• The courts below failed to appreciate the mazar c
