Appellant challenged an order allowing temporary injunction contrary to the specific prayer for restraining structural changes. Due to the mismatch between prayer and relief, the court remitted the matter to the trial court for reconsideration.
Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Trial Court to reconsider I.A.1; IA disposed of.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
M. F. A. NO.1275 OF 2021 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI G KRISHNAPPA SON OF LATE GANGANARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1322 11TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 040.
NOW RESIDING AT NO.83, 3RD MAIN 3RD CROSS, S V G NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 072.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARAYANA V S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.292, 20TH BLOCK, CPWD QUARTERS, 27TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT
2
SECTOR-1 BENGALURU-560 102.
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. SHANKAR FOR C/R-1 AND R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE (1)(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.5951/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-62, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2021 passed on IA.1 in O.S.No.5951/2020 by the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH 62) has filed this writ petition.
The respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.5951/2020 seeking for the relief of declaration of sale deed executed in favour of the appellant/defendant as null and void and consequently for the relief of injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the respondents that the
3
suit schedule property had fallen to their share under registered partition deed dated 28.5.2020 and alleged that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The appellant asserted that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 28.6.2004 executed by the original owners through their power of attorney holder Lakshmamma dated 27.10.1989 and it is contended that the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
The respondents having no right over the suit schedule property has filed a false suit. In the said suit, the respondents had also filed an application seeking for temporary injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.
The said application was opposed by the appellant. The trial Court after hearing the parties passed the
4
impugned order dated 10.2.2021. Hence, the appellant aggrieved by the same, has filed this appeal.
the learned counsel for the respondents.
to remit the matter to the trial Court to reconsider I.A.1.
objection to remit the matter to the Trial Court to reconsider I.A.1.
the parties.
an application seeking for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the respondents in respect of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court without considering the prayer
5
sought by the appellant has moulded the relief, allowed the application and directed the appellant not to change or alter the structure of the property till the disposal of the suit.
Accordingly, the following order is passed :
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned order is set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to reconsider I.A.1 and pass appropriate order in accordance
with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6
iv) The parties are directed to co-operate with the trial
Court for disposal of the interlocutory application.
All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
SD/JUDGE
rs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order allowing temporary injunction despite inconvenient relief granted can be set aside and the matter remitted.
Whether the lower court properly moulded the relief prayed for in the interlocutory application.
Sri G Krishnappa
Smt. U R Chandrakala
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
