Ownership established through title documentation is pivotal in determining rightful possession; injunctions are warranted when prima facie evidence supports legal entitlement.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 21.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.1078/2023 on the file of XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff before the Trial Court that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and he got the same from his mother – Smt. Sharadamma under the registered gift deed dated 11.08.2022. The defendants being the strangers are trying to obstruct the plaintiff from digging a bore-well and they also trying to trespass into the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit in O.S.No.1466/2022 is filed before the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District against K R Gangadhar and Jai Shankar in respect of the property bearing No.815/6/6 measuring east to west 200 square feet and north to south 75 feet. The property of the plaintiff and the defendants are different. The property of the defendants is not at all in existence. It should be southern side of Maramma Temple. The defendants, taking the advantage of the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.1466/2022, are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction.

3. In pursuance of the notice, the defendants have appeared and filed the statement of objections contending that the property falls within the rural area. The plaintiff has filed the suit in respect of the property bearing No.47 measuring 1940.25 square feet. The plaintiff has suppressed the material facts as to pendency of the suit in O.S.No.1466/2022 wherein temporary injunction has been granted and the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The Civil judge, Bengaluru Rural District also passed an order directing the jurisdictional police to provide protection and also implement the orders of the Court. The defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property measures about 200 x 75 feet. The flow of title has been narrated since 1927. The measurement of the suit schedule property is given as 1540.25 square feet but the plaintiff claims the measurement as 1940.25. The measurement in the sale deed dated 17.04.1988 and the gift deed are different. Hence, prayed the Court to reject the application.

4. The Trial Court having heard the counsel for the respective parties answered the points which have been formulated as negative and rejected the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and hence, this miscellaneous first appeal.

5. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant before this Court that Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application and failed to appreciate that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.1078/2023 and the suit schedule property in O.S.No.1466/2022 are two separate properties and have no nexus to each other. The Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the suit filed in O.S.No.1466/2022 is not at all maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and the respondents have suppressed the said fact. The Trial Court committed an error in considering cardinal principles of temporary injunction even though the appellant/plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in his favour and if injunction is not granted, it cause hardship to the plaintiff but the Trial Court failed to exercise the discretionary relief and committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the suit is a counter blast to the suit filed by the respondents in O.S.No.1466/2022 and also fails to take note that the suit schedule property is different property and the Trial Court committed an error in coming to