Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32180

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
JAYALAKSHMI D/O THAMMAIAH – Appellant
Versus
GIREESH M – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5410 OF 2024 (CPC)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. MANIAN K B S
For the Respondents: SRI.SHARATH S. GOWDA

To obtain a temporary injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, prove balance of convenience, and demonstrate potential irreparable harm. Failure to meet these criteria justifies dismissal of the application.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 - Miscellaneous First Appeal - Dismissal of application for temporary injunction - The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property through a chain of sale deeds and sought a permanent injunction against defendants for alleged encroachment. The application for temporary injunctive relief was dismissed by the trial court. The court examined whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case, established balance of convenience, and showed anticipated irreparable loss (Paras 1, 10, 30).

(B) Ownership and Title - The court highlighted that conflicting claims of ownership existed between the plaintiff and defendants. The trial court justified the dismissal based on the absence of a prima facie case, determining that the plaintiff's chain of title was dubious due to prior land acquisition proceedings (Paras 6, 24, 33).

(C) Legal Principles - The court emphasized the principles governing temporary injunctions, assessing prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable harm (Paras 12, 24, 28).

Findings of Court:
The plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of her application for temporary injunction, leading to the dismissal of her appeal.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case, established balance of convenience, and demonstrated potential for irreparable harm.

Ratio Decidendi: The trial court rightly concluded that without establishing a prima facie case, an application for temporary injunction could not be upheld, as ownership continued to be contested (Paras 18, 30).

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

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]

Table of Content
1. dismissal of temporary injunction (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. property ownership claims and encroachment (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. arguments supporting plaintiff's appeal (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 16)
4. assessment of prima facie case and convenience (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. court's rationale for denying injunction (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. conclusion and dismissal of the appeal (Para 34)

CAV JUDGMENT

The plaintiff being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 23.07.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, in O.S.No.4803/2024, thereby, not granting an order of temporary injunction, the present appeal is filed.

CASE OF PLAINTIFF:

2. The plaintiff has filed suit praying decree of permanent injunction against the defendants and also for mandatory injunction to remove the construction made on the suit schedule property by contending that plaintiff is the owner of residential site bearing No.323/208 formed by the REMCO BHEL House Building Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’ for short). The society has formed layout in the year 1990 and the suit schedule property was allotted to one K.B.Anantakrishna Sarma, one of the member of the Society under registered sale deed dated 17.11.1992 and in turn, said K.B.Anantakrishna Sarma had sold it to one Gopal Raju under registered sale deed dated 07.02.1996 and in turn, said Gopal Raju had sold the suit property to the plaintiff under registered sale deed 26.03.2002 and thereafter other revenue documents have been changed in the name of plaintiff and the plaintiff has been paying property taxes regularly and she is in possession. Thus, in this way, the plaintiff became the owner of property.

3. With the allegation against the defendants having encroached the suit schedule property and started to put up construction on the property, the plaintiff had filed an application - I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying temporary injunction, but same was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal is filed praying to set aside the dismissal order passed by the trial court.

4. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have appeared through their counsel. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed their written statement and objections to I.A.No.1, but defendant Nos.1 and 2 have adopted the written statement filed by defendant Nos.3 and 4. It is contended that originally Sy.No.25/4 (Old Sy.No.25) measuring 3 acres 1 gunta along with other lands was ancestral property of defendant No.3. The BDA had acquired the said land for the formation of residential layout in favour of REMCO BHEL Society. Thereafter, defendant No.3 and his family members have challenged the said acquisition proceedings initiated by the BDA in favour of Society before this Court in W.P.No.21920/2010 and this Court has quashed the acquisition proceedings and said judgment is reported in ILR 1991 KAR 2248. Thereafter Society had challenged the said decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the decision taken by this Court. Therefore, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court defendant No.3 has refunded the amount received in lieu of acquisition proceedings to the Special Land Acquisition Officer and BDA. Thus, in this way the BDA reconveyed the said land in favour of defendant No.3. Thereafter, defendant No.3 has got converted the land from agricultural to non- agricultural and defendant No.3 has paid betterment amount to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘BBMP’).

5. After re-conveying the land to defendant No.3 and put the defendant No.3 in possession, defendant No.3 had sold the property to defendant Nos.1 and 2. When this being the fact, Society has already formed the layout and allotted some of the sites to its employees/members. Thus, Society had allotted the suit schedule property to one K.B.Anantakrishna Sarma vide sale deed dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document