An appellate court should not interfere with a trial court's discretionary order for temporary injunction unless the order is perverse, illegal, or arbitrary, provided the trial court correctly applied the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4379/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 24TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH NO.6, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by defendants challenging the order dated 12.08.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and Rule 2 CPC in O.S. No.4379/2023 on the file of the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-6) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule ‘B’ property.

Brief facts:

2. The plaintiff instituted suit for permanent injunction in respect of schedule ‘B’ property which forms part of the larger schedule ‘A’ property bearing Survey No.220 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas (65,340 square feet) situated at Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, now within the BBMP limits. Out of the said extent, the northern portion measuring 9.5 guntas is carved out. Schedule ‘B’ property is a portion of the said northern extent, measuring 30 feet x 50 feet (1500 square feet) with a residential structure. The plaintiff claims title through a sale transaction executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and one Nayana. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application-I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the suit is not maintainable, as the plaintiff is not in possession, and hence, a bare suit is not maintainable and relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs and Others¹1 (2008) 4 SCC 594 (Anathula). It is contended that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case, as title itself is seriously disputed and the alleged sale deed is nominally executed only as a security, the identity and extent of the property is also unclear. It is contended that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants/defendants, as they are in actual possession and property contains multiple tenants, family members, including the daughter of defendant No.1 and the grant of injunction causes hardship to the occupants. It is contended that the plaintiff being not in possession, no irreparable injury is caused to the plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel further contends that the plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands and a suit based on a false police complaint and false cause of action. It is contended that Ms. Nayana, who is a co-owner and person in possession has not been impleaded and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It is contended that the Trial Court granted injunction without satisfying the three essential ingredients and by misleading evidence.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned order and relies upon the earlier order passed in O.S. No.6267/2023 filed by the daughter of defendant No.1-Nayana for partition and separate possession. Application for injunction in the said suit was rejected on 26.10.2024 and the said order has attained finality and hence, the defendants cannot now dispute the plaintiff's possession.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the po