Case Summary

• This is a Miscellaneous First Appeal against the trial court's dismissal of an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction regarding a residential site in a layout formed by REMCO BHEL House Building Co-operative Society. (!) [1][2][3]

Plaintiff's Case

• Plaintiff claims ownership of Site No. 323/208 through a chain of sale deeds: Society to K.B. Anantakrishna Sarma (17.11.1992), to Gopal Raju (07.02.1996), to plaintiff (26.03.2002); alleges possession, payment of property taxes, and defendants' encroachment with construction. [2][12][19]
• Plaintiff alleges Society entered a declaration cum ratification deed post-acquisition quashing, maintaining layout possession; prior suit O.S. No. 4435/2013 dismissed for non-prosecution, restoration petition also dismissed. [5][7][8][9][11][21]
• Plaintiff relies on writ court order quashing BBMP's khatha revocation, similar allottee's successful appeal (MFA No. 2839/2021), and argues prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury. [8][11][13][14]

Defendants' Case

• Original land (Sy. No. 25/4) was ancestral property of defendant No. 3; BDA acquisition for Society quashed by High Court (W.P. No. 21920/2010, ILR 1991 KAR 2248), affirmed by Supreme Court; land reconveyed to defendant No. 3 after refund. [4][16][20]
• Defendant No. 3 converted land to non-agricultural, paid betterment to BBMP, gifted to defendant No. 4 (wife), who sold to defendants Nos. 1 and 2; disputes Society's title post-quashing and plaintiff's chain as invalid. [4][10][16][19][20]
• Suit for injunction only not maintainable without declaration of title due to rival claims; no prima facie case or balance of convenience. [16][19][22]

Court's Analysis and Findings

• Issues: (1) Prima facie case? (2) Balance of convenience? (3) Irreparable injury? [18] (!) (!) (!)
• Title disputed: Defendant No. 3 undisputed original owner; acquisition quashed, no ratification deed involving defendant No. 3; Society's allotments post-quashing convey no title; khatha not title. [19][20][22][23][30]
• Plaintiff's prior suits unsuccessful; defendants' title chain stronger prima facie; possession follows title, defendants' construction indicates their possession. [21][22][28][29][33]
• No prima facie case established; thus no balance of convenience or irreparable injury; discretionary equitable relief unavailable. [23][28][29][33]
• Principles: Temporary injunction requires prima facie case (stronger for mandatory), balance of convenience, irreparable harm; preserves status quo but denies where title contested without clear right. [24][26][27][28]

Outcome

• Trial court correctly dismissed injunction application; appeal dismissed; trial court to decide suit merits independently, uninfluenced by observations. [33][34]