A party seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case and balance of convenience, particularly when joint family property is involved amidst ongoing development agreements.

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order passed on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE , 1908, Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’, in O.S.No.3248/2012 dated 07.12.2024, on the file of IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, thereby, the application seeking grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction or from changing the nature of the suit schedule item No.26 was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of 1/5^th share in the suit schedule ‘A’ properties and 1/3^rd share out of the said 1/5^th share in suit schedule ‘B’ properties along with other consequential reliefs.

3. The application for temporary injunction pertains only to suit schedule item No.26, namely, property bearing No.20/B situated at Aramane Nagar, Guttahalli Bangalore (Cauvery Theatre), measuring to an extent of 45622 sq.ft, Hereinafter referred to as the ‘appeal schedule property’. In support of the application, in the affidavit it is deposed that in the Memorandum of Agreement dated 19.07.2023, the plaintiff’s name was shown, but signature was left blank, hence the plaintiff has not consented for agreement.

4. It is further deposed that, in the meantime, the defendants have entered into a Joint Development Agreement with proposed respondent No.27, M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited, and therefore, the defendants have no independent right to enter into such Joint Development Agreement in respect of the appeal schedule property. If any construction is made, it would deprive the right of the plaintiff to claim his share in the appeal schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the application seeking grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction or changing the appeal schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Sreevatsa for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the appeal schedule property is joint family property and not the exclusive property of a company known as “Cauvery Theatre Complex Private Limited”. Therefore, the plaintiff, being a co-sharer/Member of the Joint Family, is entitled to a share in the appeal schedule property. It is further contended that permitting any construction on the appeal schedule property would affect and deprive the plaintiff and defendants No.14 to 17, who are sisters of their legitimate shares. Hence, he prayed for an order of temporary injunction.

6. It is further submitted that, with reference to the admission of DW.1, during the course of cross- examination held on 29.06.2024, DW.1 has admitted that the Board Resolution of the Company has not been produced before the Court. It is also admitted that L. Ravindra, Raghu and Prakash executed power of attorney to respondent No.27. Learned Senior Counsel stressed that DW.1 has admitted that