A temporary injunction cannot be granted if the plaintiff lacks valid title and does not demonstrate a prima facie case.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The defendant in O.S.No.1814/2018 has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18.08.2018 passed on interlocutory application (IA) filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1814/2018 on the file of XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-42)¹, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is allowed.

3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has purchased the suit schedule site from the REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Limited (for short ‘the Society’) through a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1997 and thus she is in possession over the suit schedule site, but the defendant is causing interference with the suit schedule site. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction.

5. Upon the application filed, the Trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that initially the State Government had acquired the lands of various survey numbers including Sy.No.24/3, in which the suit schedule site was formed in favour of the society. The land owners have challenged the said acquisition proceedings before this Court and this Court had quashed the acquisition proceedings and is reported inILR 1991 AIR 2248 . Subsequently, the society had challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order passed by this Court and the same is reported in ILR 1995 KAR 1962

6. It is the case of the defendant that after quashment of the acquisition proceedings by this Court, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the society has restored the lands to its owners, who are in possession by receiving the compensation amount from the land owners through the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO).

7. When this being the fact, the society had lost its title and lands were reverted back to its owners, then the purchaser of site (the plaintiff) through the society has become illegal, as the society had lost its title in the year 1991 itself. Further submitted that the defendant is the purchaser of the suit schedule site from the landowners. Therefore, the title has been validly conveyed to the owners, in this line, defendant has filed written statement.

8. The Trial Court has allowed the application filed for temporary injunction and granted an order of temporary injunction on the reason that subsequent to the quashing of acquisition proceedings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the land owners have executed deed of declaration cum ratification affirming whatever acts were done by the society and also upon the compromise decree in O.S.No.5471/2002 dated 02.03.2009.

9. Upon considering the rival submissions of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusal of the material placed on record, the following points would arise for my consideration:

i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the materials produced before the Trial Court?

ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff makes out balance of convenience to grant an order of temporary injunction?

iii. Whet