Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27316
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Vijaykumar A. Patil, J
Seshappa – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 17893 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shivaramu H.C.
An applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction if they establish a prima facie case through official revenue records and grant orders, especially when the respondent's counterclaims of joint family property interest have been previously dismissed by courts.
Headnote:The case involves an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Following the rejection of an injunction application by the trial and appellate courts on the grounds of suppression of material facts—specifically the pendency of a prior partition suit—the petitioner approached this court seeking relief. The court observed that the property in question had been granted exclusively to the petitioner, and that the opposing party's claims to the property as a joint family asset had thus far been dismissed by multiple courts. The central issue was whether the petitioner is entitled to a temporary injunction pending the disposal of the suit for permanent injunction, particularly when the respondent's claims of partition have not yet been successfully adjudicated. The court reasoned that in view of the existing revenue records showing the property grant in favor of the petitioner and the dismissal of the respondent's partition suit in lower proceedings, the petitioner established a prima facie case. The ratio clarifies that until the joint family status of the property is unequivocally established by a court, the petitioner's possession deserves protection to prevent irreparable harm. The writ petition is allowed, granting the order of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grant of temporary injunction based on prima facie title and balance of convenience. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2022 PASSED BY THE THIRD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE ANNEXURE-H CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND 5 IN OS.NO.289/2019 BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANNXURE-G RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.07.2020 passed in OS No.289 of 2019 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court', for short) and the order dated 24.06.2022 passed in MA No.56 of 2020 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court', for short).
2. Sri. Shivaramu H.C. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent herein. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court solely on the ground that the plaintiff in the suit has failed to disclose the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent for partition. It is submitted that the Appellate Court as well concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner is the grantee of the suit schedule property as per the grant order dated 20.05.2010 and thereafter, all the revenue records are standing in his name and hence he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the material placed before it and the said material prima facie establishes the title as well as the possession of the suit schedule property.
3. It is further submitted that the respondent has filed a suit for the relief of partition, which came to be dismissed on 25.03.2021. Thereafter, he preferred Regular Appeal i.e. RA No.120 of 2021, which also came to be dismissed and by suppressing the Regular First Appeal he files another Regular First Appeal before this Court, which is numbered as RFA No.903 of 2022, which is pending in the Registry with office objections. It is also contented that this Court, while issuing notice, has considered the prima facie case and directed parties to maintain status quo vide order dated 28.10.2022 which was extended on 31.01.2026 and on 24.02.2026 and if the said order is continued till the disposal of the suit, ends of justice would be met. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
4. This Court issued Court notice to the respondent on the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that he has no instructions in the matter. The Court notice issued to the respondent has been returned with an endorsement as "unclaimed". Hence, service on the said respondent is held sufficient and there is no representation for the respondent.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record.
6. The petitioner herein has filed OS No.289 of 2019 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the respondent herein. In the said suit, he filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, 'CPC') seeking temporary injunction. The Trial Court, considering the rival submissions rejected the said application solely on the ground that the plaintiff in the suit has suppressed the filing of OS No.1041 of 2018 filed by the defendant seeking for partition.
