Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27581
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Lalitha Kanneganti, J
Jayamma – Appellant
Versus
Siddagangaiah – Respondent
WP No. 12757 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Govindaraja T.
For the Respondents: Samarth Prakash
An appellate court must record specific findings regarding the triple tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when granting a temporary injunction; failing to do so and improperly shifting the burden of proof to the defendant renders the order unsustainable.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Appellate Court, which had reversed the Trial Court's decision to dismiss an application for temporary injunction. The core dispute involves a declaration of title and a registered Will, with conflicting claims of possession and title between the parties as evidenced by revenue records and past judicial decrees. The main issue is whether the Appellate Court erred in granting a temporary injunction without recording findings on the triple tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The court held that the burden lies upon the plaintiff seeking injunctive relief to establish possession, and the Appellate Court failed to analyze these essential requirements, instead improperly shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant. The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order of the Appellate Court is set aside with directions to re-examine the appeal in accordance with the law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and nature of the interim dispute between the parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding the failure of the lower appellate court to apply legal tests for injunction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. failure to address primary legal criteria for granting temporary injunction constitutes a legal error. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. remand of the matter for fresh consideration by the appellate court. (Para 9) |
WRIT PETITION NO. 12757 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU IN M.A.19/2025 DATED 18-02-2026 IN ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in M.A. No.19/2025 dated 18.02.2026 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit is before this Court.
2. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit has filed the suit for declaration of title that he is the owner of the suit scheduled property and also a consequential relief to set aside the registered Will dated 05.11.2018. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed IA No.1 seeking an order of temporary injunction, which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 03.04.2025.
3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No.1, the plaintiff preferred M.A. No.19/2025 before the District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted an order of temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant submits that, the Appellate Court without recording any finding with regard to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, has granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that mainly on the grounds that the earlier suit was not contested by the defendants with regard to the relationship of the plaintiff with the testator and how the will is executed in favour of the plaintiff. That relationship is not mentioned and all these issues will be decided during the course of the trial and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for injunction. It is submitted that the Court without even giving any finding on prima facie case and other ingredients has granted injunction. It is submitted the order is liable to be side.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there cannot be a mini trial at the time of considering an application for temporary injunction. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has rightly considered the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and has correctly held that the plaintiff is entitled for an order of injunction. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. This Court has gone through the order passed on the I.A.No.1 in the suit and also the order passed in the M.A.No.19/2025 by the Appellate Court. While dismissing the application for interim injunction, the Trial Court had observed that going through the documents from both sides as already discussed, it is crystal clear that the appeal preferred by one Narasappa s/o Bommanna in RRT.No.170/2021 before Additional Divisional Court, Madhugiri, has been disposed of and complaint dated 20.11.2019 filed by the defendant before the Kallambella Police Station, which is much prior to the institution of the suit itself reflects that in the year 2019 itself the defendant had given police complaint against the plaintiff which prima facie reflects that the defendant is in possession of the suit property, the revenue entries in respect of the suit pr
