Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31180
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. UMESH M ADIGA, J
SHRI. BALASAHEB S/O. PARASHURAM SHEDAKE – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. KALLAPPA S/O. GUNDU SHARABIDRI – Respondent
MFA NO.101676 OF 2024 (CPC) | MFA NO.101704 OF 2024 (CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. Y. R. JOGI
For the Respondents: SRI. V. G. BHAT, SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI
The court established the importance of applying equitable principles in temporary injunction cases involving competing property claims.
Headnote:The appeals challenge a common order from the Principal Senior Civil Judge granting temporary injunctions. The plaintiff claims ownership via a Will from 2008 and seeks injunctions against defendants alienating the property. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish actual possession, deeming the trial judge’s denial of injunction appropriate. However, it granted a temporary injunction to preserve the property’s status quo amid claims from both parties under intestate and testamentary succession laws. Upon reviewing evidence, the court allowed MFA No. 101676 of 2024 while dismissing MFA No. 101704 of 2024.
Result: MFA No.101676/2024 allowed and MFA No.101704/2024 dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeals arise from a common order challenging the temporary injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiff claims ownership via a will, defendants contest this. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court considers evidence of possession and equity. (Para 6 , 11) |
| 4. court evaluates the trial judge's decision on injunctions. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final ruling increases status quo preservation for property. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
1. Both these appeals arise out of a common order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad in O.S. No.354/2022. The plaintiff filed I.A. No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an ad-interim relief of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property bearing Sy.No.510 measuring 3 acres 1 gunta, situated in Garag Village, Dharwad District. Further, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.4 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking an ad-interim relief of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
2. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that his maternal uncle, one Gundu Sharabidri executed a Will in his favour on 09.02.2008, bequeathing the suit property in his favour and the said Gundu died on 03.03.2008. After the death of Gundu, the plaintiff became owner of suit property by virtue of the Will and came in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He has been in continuous possession and cultivation of the same. During the year 2022, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed an application to mutate the revenue records in their names and accordingly their names were entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff filed an application for cancellation of the said entry. Thereafter the defendants trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks relief of declaration that he become the owner of the suit property by virtue of the Will dated 09.02.2008 and a further declaration that the order passed by the Tahsildar is not binding on him.
4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed the written statement before the trial Court, denying the contention of the plaintiff and denied that the Gundu had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff. Their contention is that as the legal heirs, they succeeded to the suit property and have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is further stated that defendant Nos.1 to 3 sold the entire suit property to defendant Nos.4 and 5. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 contended that they had developed a portion of the said land; got converted and framed a layout. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 have been carrying out development work on the remaining portion of suit property. Some of the plots were already sold. They also contended that the plaintiff at no point of time disclosed the existence of the alleged Will. After the development work has been completed the suit is filed. Therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
5. Learned trial Judge after hearing both the parties, considering the contention of the parties and on perusing the records, rejected both applications by the impugned order. The same is challenged by the appellant in the aforesaid two appeals, on the grounds mentioned in the appeals.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for both parties.
7. The following point arises for consideration: (i) Whether the order of the learned trial Judge is perverse, arbitrary, and illegal, warranting interference by this Court?
8. My findings on the above point is partly in the affirmative for the following reasons:
9. The plaintiff has produced a copy of the Will said to be executed by the deceased Gundu on 09.02.2008. The death certificate is produced and it shows that he died on 03.03.2008. It is not in dispute that af
