Basavaraj S/O. Nagappa Sudambi v. Bheemappa S/O. Hanamantappa Masali
Case brief
What is this about?
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH…
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
�����
������������������������������
�������������
������������������� ��������������������
������
��������������� �����������!�����"���������
�����"���������#�$$��%���������&��'�"�(
�������)
���������������
#�$��%&������������������'
���)
�����
����������������������������� ��������������� !�
���������������
#�$��%&����,����������������-������ �.�/'
����� ���� ��������� ��� -����� ����� ���������//+�.�//0��-���������������-������ �������� ��� ������ ���� ��������� ����� ���������������������-������������������� ������� ������������ ��� ��������/! / ���� ��!/�/! �� ��� ���� ����,������ ��� ������������� ��� ����� �������� �� ����������/! !�-����������1������� �.�/���* ���� � ��-�����
�2&3�4%&5�675&5&89�:8;&9<�89�=8%� ����������� ��������52&3�>?$��527��8@%5�;?>7�527�=8AA84&9<�
���������
�75&5&897%3�?%7�527�6A?&95&==3�?9>�%73689>7953
?%7�527�>7=79>?953�&9�������8�����/! !�679>&9< 89�527�=&A7�8=��&B&A��@><7���$?>?<&����@&5�4?3�=&A7> 89� !� /�/! !�58�6?33�?�>7:%77�8=�67%;?9795 &9C@9:5&89�%735%?&9&9<�>7=79>?953�=%8;�&957%=7%&9< 4&52�527�67?:7=@A�6833733&89�?9>�79C8$;795�8=�527 3@&5�6%867%5&73�D$�527�6A?&95&==3����A89<�4&52�527
3@&5�������4?3�=&A7>�58�<%?95�?9�?>�&957%&;�8%>7%�8=
�����
57;68%?%$�&9C@9:5&89����7=79>?953�2?B&9<�7957%7> ?667?%?9:7�52%8@<2�527�A7?%97>�?>B8:?57��=&A7> 4%&5579� 35?57;795� 89� ! �!+�/! �� &957%� ?A&? >79$&9<�527�6A?&95�?B7%;7953�?9>�38@<25�>&3;&33?A 8=�527�3@&5�����;7;8�4?3�=&A7>�?>865&9<�527 :8957953�8=�4%&5579�35?57;795�?3�8DC7:5&893�58��� �8���
/����7?%97>�5%&?A��@><7�@689�:893&>7%?5&89�8= %&B?A�:895795&893�?9>�%7:8%>�8=�527�3@&5��?AA847> �����&9�6?%5�?9>�>&%7:57>�D852�6?%5&73�58�;?&95?&9 35?5@3�E@8�4&52�%7367:5�58�9?5@%7�8=�527�3@&5 6%867%5&73�42&:2�?%7�&9�527&%�6833733&89�?9> 79C8$;795��@95&A�=@%527%�8%>7%3����852�6?%5&73�47%7 >&%7:57>�985�58�6@5�@6�?9$�:8935%@:5&89�?9> :2?9<7�527�9?5@%7�8=�527�6%867%5$�
����-77A&9<�?<<%&7B7>��6A?&95&==3�=&A7>��� �8���/! /�&9�527��8@%5�8=��79&8%��&B&A��@><7�?9> �5&97%?57��8@%5�?5��$?>?<&����27�?667?A�2?B&9<
�����
D779�>&3;&337>�89� ��!/�/! ���52&3�4%&5�675&5&89 2?3�D779�=&A7>�
(����7?%>��%&������?9?F?%��A7?%97>�?>B8:?57 =8%�527�675&5&897%3�?9>��%&��?G;?9����?95?�?>B8:?57�=8%�%73689>7953�?9>�67%@37>�527 4%&5�675&5&89�%7:8%>�
�����27�E@735&89�=8%�:893&>7%?5&89�&3�
“Whether the well-settled principles relating to grant of temporary injunction have been kept in mind by the trial court and the appellate court while passing the impugned order and the judgment?”
+���*2&A7�6?33&9<�527�8%>7%�8=�&9C@9:5&89 @9>7%��%>7%�,,,�,��@A73� �?9>�/�8=������527
�8@%5�&3�%7E@&%7>�58�:893&>7%�
#&' *27527%�527%7�&3�?� ������������:?37�&9 =?B8@%�8=�6A?&95&==3H
�����
#&&' *27527%�527�D?A?9:7�8=�:89B79&79:7�&3
&9� =?B8@%� 8=� 6?33&9<� 527� 8%>7%� 8= &9C@9:5&89H
#&&&' *27527%� 527� 6A?&95&==3� 4&AA� 3@==7% &%%76?%?DA7� &9C@%$� &=� ?9� 8%>7%� 8= &9C@9:5&89� 48@A>� 985� D7� 6?337>� ?3 6%?$7>�=8%�
0����9�527�:?37�8=� ���������������� �������� ��� �������� ������ ���� ������
%768%57>�?5� �������������������67G��8@%5�2?3 27A>�?3�=8AA843�
“5. …Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that noninterference by the Court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he
�����
needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages.”
�����7?%97>�5%&?A��@><7�42&A7�6?33&9<�527 &;6@<97>�8%>7%�2?3�985&:7>�?3�58�284�527%7�:?9 D7�;&3:2&7=��&=�?9�8%>7%�8=�57;68%?%$�&9C@9:5&89 47%7�58�D7�<%?957>����9�8%>7%�58�3?=7<@?%>�527 &957%735�8=�D852�6?%5&73�� � � !��"!#�4?3�8%>7%7>�58 D7�;?&95?&97>�D$�D852�6?%5&73��&9�527�;?997% 985&:7>� �!�������7?%97>�?667AA?57��@><7�2?B&9< :893&>7%7>� 527� ;?557%� ?9>� =&9>&9<� 52?5� 527 &;6@<97>�8%>7%�&3�97&527%�?%D&5%?%$�98%�67%B7%37� =8@9>� &5� &9?66%86%&?57� 58� &957%=7%7� 4&52� 527
�����
&3:%75&89?%$�8%>7%�6?337>�D$�527�A7?%97>�5%&?A
�@><7�
1����?B&9<�67%@37>�527�&;6@<97>�8%>7%�?9> 527�C@><;795�?9>�527�%&B?A�:895795&893��3&9:7�527 52&%>�7A7;795��985&:7>� �!�����2?3�985�D779�;75�D$ 527� 6A?&95&==3�675&5&897%3�� �� >8� 985� =&9>� ?9$ C@35&=&:?5&89�58�&957%=7%7�4&52�527�&;6@<97>�8%>7% ?9>�527�C@><;795�%7367:5&B7A$�
�9�527�:&%:@;35?9:73��675&5&89�&3� ��������
������27�8%>7%�8=� � � !��"!#�6?337>�89������D$�527 A7?%97>�5%&?A��@><7�89� �! �/! /�32?AA�:895&9@7 58�867%?57�5&AA�527�3@&5�&3�>7:&>7>����&9:7�527 6A7?>&9<3�&9�527�3@&5�?%7�:8;6A757�?9>�527�3@&5�&3 ?5�527�35?<7�8=�5%&?A��527�A7?%97>�5%&?A��@><7�&3 >&%7:57>�58�>7:&>7�527�3@&5�4&52&9�?�67%&8>�8=�3&G ;89523�=%8;�527�97G5�27?%&9<�>?57����A?&95&==3 32?AA�?>>@:7�?9>�:8;6A757�527&%�3&>7�8=�7B&>79:7 4&52&9�548�;89523�=%8;�527�97G5�27?%&9<�>?57�?9>
�����
527�>7=79>?953�32?AA�?>>@:7�?9>�:8;6A757�527&% 3&>7�8=�7B&>79:7�4&52&9�548�;89523�=%8;�527�>?57 6A?&95&==3�:A837�527&%�:?37����27�3@&5�D7�>7:&>7>�&9 ?::8%>?9:7�4&52�A?4��@9&9=A@79:7>�D$�527�8%>7% 6?337>�89������?9>�&53�?==&%;?5&89�D$�527��67G �8@%5����8�:8353�
��*' ����������� ����
�5�D$<�� ����
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the well-settled principles of temporary injunction were kept in mind by the trial and appellate courts while passing the impugned order?
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court