Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24121
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
SRI. VENUGOPAL A. M. – Appellant
Versus
SRI. J. ANTHONY RAJ – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.25653 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ
For the Respondents: SRI. D. R. RAVISHANKAR, SRI. K. VIJAYAKUMAR
The court emphasized the necessity of proving title for injunction orders, asserting possession alone is insufficient amid competing claims.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India - Writ Petition - The petitioners challenged the order of the First Appellate Court which set aside the Trial Court's injunction favoring petitioners. The First Appellate Court found that the petitioners did not establish a prima facie case or the balance of convenience to merit an injunction, as there were significant questions regarding title and possession of the suit schedule property (Para 26).
(B) Injunction - Principles governing injunctions - The court held that an order of injunction by the Trial Court should not be interfered with lightly; but the First Appellate Court established the existence of substantial disputes regarding title, requiring resolution through trial (Para 27).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed ownership via a sale deed from 2025, while respondents held earlier deeds raising title disputes, including the context of the Inams Abolition Act.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed that the resolutions of title and ownership issues were complex and merited further trial, thus upholding the appellate court's decision to dissolve the injunction.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the petitioners could prove their possession based on title amidst competing claims by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court further asserted the necessity for clear titleproof for granting an injunction, highlighting that possession alone does not suffice without prima facie title.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injunctions require proof of title and possession. (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. the complexity of title disputes necessitates trial consideration. (Para 3) |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order of the First Appellate Court dated 12.08.2025 which upturns the order of the Trial Court which had granted injunction in favour of the present petitioners-plaintiffs.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Jayakumar S Patil for Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar for Sri.K.Vijayakumar, representing the respondent No.3 and have perused the material on record.
3. Sans details, the facts necessary for consideration of the subject lis is as follows:
(a) A sale deed is executed in favour of the petitioners’
vendors one Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty on 12.01.1948. The next date narrated by the petitioners is that they have purchased the property pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 04.04.2025 from the hands of the legal heirs of Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty. Mutation entries are also changed into the names of the petitioners. The averment in the petition is that certain disturbances to the possession of the petitioners ensued and therefore, they had to institute a suit in O.S.No.582/2025 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents herein. An application along with it under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred which was heard by the concerned Court and an order of injunction was passed. Against the order of injunction, the defendants-respondents herein prefer an appeal before the First Appellate Court in M.A.No.71/2025 and M.A.No.76/2025 which comes to be allowed by an order dated 12.08.2025 by the First Appellate Court. The allowing of the appeal is what has driven the petitioners-plaintiffs who were in benefit of an order of injunction against the respondents to this Court.
(b) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri.Jayakumar S Patil taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition, would seek to prima facie demonstrate that the petitioners have purchased a property in Sy.No.33/2. The boundaries that are found are entirely different, is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel. He would further submit that the First Appellate Court could not have upturned the order of the Trial Court, in a casual way, as it is settled principle of law that if an injunction is granted after hearing both the parties, the First Appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the order so passed on considered reasons. The learned Senior Counsel submits that injunction that was operating in favour of the petitioners be restored. (c) Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar would submit that the petitioners claim their title pursuant to a sale deed executed in the year 2025. The sale deed is said to be executed by the legal heirs of Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty. In the interregnum what has happened is all in vacuum.
(d) He would submit that in the interregnum, there are several incidents that have taken place with regard to Inams Abolition Act and the owners of the property after the regrant having got the property converted in the year 1989 and sold in the year 1992, when it was divided into six fragments.
(e) The learned Senior Counsel submits that the sale deed in favour of the respondents is earlier in time and therefore, in terms of section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , the injunction should ought not to have been granted as the sale deed of an earlier time would prevail over the sale deed of a later point in time of the same property. Learned Senior Counsel submits that all these issues will have to be thrashed out before the concerned Court where a suit for injunction is pending adjudication. He would submit that revenue entries were changed on 28.02.2025 and the sale deed is entered into on 15.03.2025 which is disp
