MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6847 OF 2025 (CPC)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1961/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-15, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff calling in question the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short) in O.S.No.1961/2025, whereby I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be rejected.

Brief facts:

2. The appellant-plaintiff claims that the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.25/1, measuring 11 ½ guntas situated at Singasandra Village, originally belonged to his father late Lakshmaiah and thereafter, under a registered partition deed dated 26.11.2007, the said property fell to his share. It is his case that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and, has constructed residential houses therein and is residing in a portion of the same. It is further contended that the respondent-defendant, who is a stranger to the property interfered with the peaceful possession of the appellant during March-2025 and attempted to dispossess him. Hence, the suit for injunction came to be filed along with I.A.No.1 seeking interim protection.

3. The respondent resisted the application contending that the entire Sy.No.25/1 measuring 3 acres 17 guntas was acquired by the Government for the benefit of Aircraft Employees Housing Co-operative Society, possession was taken and handed over to the society, lay out was formed and sites were allotted. The respondent claims title over Site No.1339/D through a registered sale deed and asserts lawful possession.

4. The Trial Court, upon considering of the pleadings and material on record, rejected the application holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of the registered partition deed and subsequent revenue entries. It is contended that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled possession. Possession is sufficient to grant injunction even in the absence of clear title. It is contended that the acquisition proceedings relied upon by the respondents are not binding on the appellant, neither the appellant nor his father were effectively made parties or served with a notice. It is contended that the documents produced by the respondent are disputed and cannot be relied upon at the interlocutory stage. It is submitted that the Trial Court has failed to properly apply the settled principles governing temporary injunction and has erroneously rejected the application and that the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N. Phanindra, appearing for the respondent submits that the entire extent Sy.No.25/1, measuring 3 acres 17 guntas had been validly acquired by the Government for the benefit of Aircraft Employees Housing Co-operative Society under the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition proceedings have attained finality, the father of the appellant has challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.1203/1990 and connected matters which came to be dismissed, the writ appeals preferred thereof were also dismissed, the special leave petition and the review petition filed thereafter have also been dismissed. It is contended that pursuant to the acquisition, possession of the land was taken by Government on 07.08.2003 and handed over to the society and thereafter a residential layout was formed