A suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when there is a serious dispute over the title of the property; in such cases, the plaintiff must seek a declaration of title to establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2174 OF 2026 (CPC)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2025 IN O.S.NO.5492/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-42, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1/2025 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:

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous first appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, calling in question the order dated 13.03.2026 passed on I.A. No.1/2025 in O.S. No.5492/2025 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-42) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction has been rejected.

The plaintiff has instituted suit for relief of permanent injunction contending that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property bearing Site No.1242, situated at HBR layout, Bengaluru, having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 23.01.2004 executed by his vendor, who in turn derived title pursuant to allotment made by the BDA.

It is the case of the plaintiff, that after purchase, he obtained katha in his name and has been regularly paying taxes in respect of the suit property. It is further contended that defendant No.1, without any manner of right, has undertaken construction activities in the neighboring site bearing Nos.1241, 1243, 1244 and 1245 and in the course of such activity, has interfered with the plaintiff's property by digging on the northern and southern sides and allegedly demolishing the compound wall and a shed said to be existing on the suit property.

On the other hand, defendant No.1 has denied the claim of the plaintiff and contended that the suit property forms part of a larger extent, which has been transferred in favour of a third party, namely M/s. Gudwil Housing Company under a gift deed dated 14.09.2017 and that the said company is in possession of the property. It is also contended that the plaintiff's title is based on a disputed and allegedly fraudulent GPA transaction, the proposed defendant have also asserted independent rights over the property, alleging irregularities in the allotment and the subsequent transactions.

The Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, held:

i. That the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case.

ii. There exists a serious cloud over the title, requiring adjudication in a declarative suit.

iii. The plaintiff has not produced any sufficient material to prove actual possession. In view of the disputed and alleged construction, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. Consequently, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are not in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the application for temporary injunction came to be rejected.

Sri Veerabhadraiaha M.C., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has committed a serious error in rejecting the application for temporary injunction. It is contended that the appellant has produced cogent evidence, such as registered sale deed, possession certificate, katha and tax paid receipts, which clearly establish his title and possession. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 has illegally commenced construction over the suit property and such acts would cause irreparable injury. The balance of convenience is in favour of protecting the property from unlawful interference. It is contended that the findings of the trial Court are contrary to the material on record and the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, Sri S. Sreevatsa, learned senior counsel on behalf of Sri S.D.N. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and contends that the app