Dismissed

Sri.K.Venkataprasad v. Sri.H.J.Siwani

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2021MFA/2034/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two consolidated First Appeals challenging the Trial Court's grant of temporary injunction restraining appellants from interfering with property possession or alienating sites. The High Court upheld the injunction, finding no perversity as plaintiffs established a prima facie case via presumption of genuineness of sale deeds and POA, balance of convenience favored plaintiffs due to threat of dispo

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's temporary injunction orders.

Sri.K.Venkataprasad Vs Sri.H.J.Siwani — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2033/2021 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2034/2021 (CPC) M.F.A.No.2033/2021:

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

NALINI CHETTUR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS D/O LATE PARVATHI CHETTUR REP. THROUGH HER GPA HOLDER SRI K.VENKATAPRASAD S/O LATE K.RAGHURAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.1005 & 1006, 10^TH FLOOR PRESTIGE MERIDIAN II M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SMT.IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE)

¶10

M.F.A.No.2034/2021:

¶11

BETWEEN :

¶12

SRI K.VENKATAPRASAD S/O LATE K.RAGHURAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.1005 & 1006, 10^TH FLOOR PRESTIGE MERIDIAN II M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SMT.IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

SRI H.J.SIWANI S/O J.K.SIWANI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶15

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶16

¶17

M.J.SIWANI S/O J.K.SIWANI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶18

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.122, 5^TH MAIN ROAD JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION BANGALORE – 560 046 …RESPONDENTS (COMMON)

¶19

(BY SRI K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S SHETTY AND HEGDE ASSTS.)

¶20

M.F.A.NO.2033/2021 AND M.F.A.NO.2034/2021 ARE FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) READ WITH SECTION 104 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2021 PASSED BY 74^TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU CCH-75 IN OS.NO.26260/2020 AND O.S.NO.25333/2021 ON I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶21

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

‘Whether the impugned orders of injunction passed by the Trial Court against the appellants suffer vice of arbitrariness, capriciousness or perversity’? is the question involved in these appeals.

¶24

Since both appeals involve common question of law and facts, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order.

¶25

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶26

¶27

MFA No.2033/2021 arises out of the order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.26260/2020 and MFA No.2034/2021 arises out of the order passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.25333/2021. The appellants were the defendants and the respondents were the plaintiffs in those suits and they will be referred to accordingly henceforth.

¶28

By the impugned order in

¶29

M.F.A.No.2033/2021, the trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC restraining the defendant in O.S.No.26260/2020 from demolishing the structure existing on the suit schedule property and in any way interfering with their peaceful possession.

¶30

M.F.A.No.2034/2021 the trial Court has allowed the application of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.25333/2021 for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule sites.

¶31

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶32

¶33

The subject matter of the suits in both cases

¶34

are 25 sites bearing Nos.417/23, 417/20, 417/16, 417/14, 417/9, 417/25, 417/17, 417/13, 417/6, 417/3, 417/18, 417/15, 417/7, 417/4, 417/1, 417/22, 417/24, 417/21, 417/19, 417/12, 417/11, 417/10, 417/8, 417/5 and 417/2.

¶35

The plaintiffs claim that the said sites are

¶36

carved out of land bearing old Survey No.40, New Numbers 144/3 and 91/2 of Pattanduru Agrahara village, Mahadevapura Notified Area, Krishnarajapuram, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶37

Smt.Nalini Chettur the defendant in O.S.No.26260/2020 is the daughter of late Parvathi Chettur. Parvathi Chettur purchased 5 acres of land in Survey No.40 of Pattanduru Agrahara village under the registered sale deed dated 30.07.1962 from one T.Venkatappa S/o. Thimmareddy. Said T.Venkatappa acquired 10 acres land in Survey No.40 under the registered sale deed dated 25.08.1950. Parvathi Chettur died on 05.07.2008 leaving behind her daughter and

¶38

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶39

¶40

son namely Smt.Nalini Chettur and Sri Bala Chettur @ Balakrishna.

¶41

During the life time of Parvathi Chettur, in the year 1974 resurvey and settlement was conducted. In that 5 acres of land in Survey No.40 was bifurcated into 3 acres 21 gunats as Survey No.144/3 and 13 guntas as Survey No.91/2, 1 acre 6 guntas in erstwhile Survey No.40 was resumed by the State Government.

¶42

The plaintiffs claim that Nalini Chettur as registered Power of Attorney holder of her mother Parvathi Chettur sold the plaint schedule sites to their vendors namely Lovely Paul, B.V.Paul, Ranjan Kapoor and M/s.Ormonde Developers Pvt. Ltd. and put them in possession.

¶43

11. The	said	purchasers	filed
O.S.No.26169/2019	against	Nalini Chettur	for

¶44

permanent injunction claiming that having sold the properties, she is interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties

¶45

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶46

¶47

creating some revenue entries. In that suit, temporary injunction was granted against Nalini Chettur. Pending the said suit, on 14.08.2020 the plaintiffs purchased 25 sites from Lovely Paul, B.V.Paul, Ranjan Kapoor and M/s.Ormonde Developers Pvt. Ltd. under the registered sale deeds. Plaintiffs claim that they are in possession of the said property.

¶48

On such sale, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.26169/2019 got the said suit dismissed. Thereafter the purchasers filed O.S.No.26260/2020 alleging that having sold the property long back, to make wrongful gain, Nalini Chettur is setting up false claim over the property and obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and sought decree for permanent injunction. In the said suit, they filed I.A.No.1 against the defendant Nalini Chettur to injunct her from demolishing the existing structure or interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶49

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶50

¶51

Nalini Chettur contested the suit and the application denying the identity of the property, execution of the registered Power of Attorney dated 29.09.1994 and sale deeds allegedly executed on the basis of such Power of Attorney. She also disputed the possession of the plaintiffs or their vendors. She claimed that after the death of her mother in the year 2008, on her application name of herself and her brother Balakrishna Chettur were mutated to the property bearing Survey Nos.144/3 and 91/2 and they were in peaceful possession of the property. She further claimed that the Tahsildhar has issued endorsement that no such sites in Survey Nos.144/3 and 91/2 exist. She also claimed that there was no approved layout in those lands and the claim of the plaintiffs is false.

¶52

Pending O.S.No.26260/2020, Nalini Chettur executed Power of Attorney dated 06.08.2020 and 18.12.2020 in favour of K.Venkata Prasad the defendant in O.S.No.25331/2021. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.25333/2021 against K.Venkata Prasad the

¶53

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶54

¶55

appellant in MFA No.2034/2021 claiming that though they are the owner of the said sites, in collusion with Nalini Chettur and taking advantage of the said Power of Attorney, Sri K.Venkata Prasad is trying to alienate the suit schedule sites and create encumbrance on the same. Therefore they sought decree for permanent injunction against alienation of the suit schedule sites.

¶56

In that suit, they filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction against said K.Venkata Prasad against alienation of the property on the basis of the Power of Attorney dated 06.08.2020 and 18.12.2020. He also contested the said suit and the application on the same lines as of his principal Nalini Chettur.

¶57

The trial Court on hearing both side on by the impugned orders dated 20.04.2021 allowed both the applications and granted temporary injunction against the said defendants on the following grounds:

¶58

(i) Since 1994, the Power of Attorney executed by Parvathi Chettur in favour of Nalini Chettur and sale deeds executed by Nalini Chettur in favour of the

¶59

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶60

¶61

plaintiffs’ vendors were not questioned. For the first time in the year 2019, Nalini Chettur behind the back of the plaintiffs got mutated the name of herself and her brother and those entries were stayed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶62

(ii) The temporary injunction granted against Nalini Chettur in O.S.No.26169/2019 was in force till that suit was withdrawn.

¶63

(iii) Though in the sale deeds survey numbers of the land were not mentioned, in the Power of Attorney the same were mentioned, khatas were changed in the name of the purchases and they have paid taxes to the local authority. The plaintiffs have made out prima facie case of their right and the matters require trial.

¶64

(iv) The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs. If temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable injury.

¶65

As already stated, the said orders are under challenge in the above appeals.

¶66

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶67

¶68

Smt.Irfana Nazeer, learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants seeks to assail the impugned orders of the trial Court on the following grounds:

¶69

(i) Survey Nos.144/3 and 91/2 were agricultural lands and they were not converted for nonagricultural use. Therefore the case of the plaintiffs that the sites were carved out of those lands and sold to the plaintiffs’ vendors is unacceptable.

¶70

(ii) In the sale deeds, there was no mention of survey numbers and the Tahsildhar has given endorsement that no such sites exist in Survey Nos.144/3 and 91/2.

¶71

(iii) The plaintiffs step by step improved their case. In O.S.No.26169/2019, they have not mentioned survey numbers. The subsequent sale deeds between the plaintiffs in O.S.No.26169/2019 and the present plaintiffs were brought into existence to show that the suit schedule sites were carved out of Survey Nos.144/3 and 91/2. The Power of Attorney and sale deeds of the year 1994 were all concocted documents.

¶72

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶73

¶74

(iv) When the land was not converted to non-agricultural use, change of khata by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and payment of taxes will not serve the case of the plaintiffs. The trial Court fell in error in holding that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case.

¶75

(v) When the identity of the property itself is in dispute, the suits are not maintainable. The plaintiffs have to seek declaration of their title.

¶76

In support of her contentions, she relies

¶77

upon the following judgments:

¶78

1. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.¹

¶79

2. Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy²

¶80

3. Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden³

¶81

4. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh⁴

¶82

5. Shyama Kishore Bal v. Kishore Talkies at Nanpur⁵

¶83

6. State of U.P. v. ATA Mohd.⁶

¶84

7. K.N.Aswathnarayana Setty Vs. State of Karnataka⁷

¶85

1 (1995) 5 SCC 545

¶86

2 (2008) 4 SCC 594

¶87

3 (1990) 2 SCC 117

¶88

4 (1992) 1 SCC 719

¶89

5 (1995) 79 CLT 252: 1995 AIHC 3096

¶90

6 (1980) 3 SCC 614

¶91

7 (2014) 15 SCC 394

¶92

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶93

¶94

8. Sailen Seth v.Steel Authority of India Ltd.⁸

¶95

9. Classic Orchards Property Owners Association Vs. State of Karnataka⁹

¶96

Per contra, Sri K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.Shetty & Hegde, Associates, the advocates on record for the respondents/plaintiffs seeks to justify the impugned orders on the following grounds:

¶97

(i) Admittedly, Parvathi Chettur was the absolute the owner of the said properties. She executed Power of Attorney in favour of Nalini Chettur on 27.09.1994 in the presence of notary. On the basis of said Power of Attorney, Nalini Chettur executed 25 registered sale deeds in favour of the vendors of the plaintiffs.

¶98

(ii) Thereafter the khata entries were made in favour of the purchaser, the taxes were paid to local authority. Though in the sale deeds, survey numbers of the lands were not mentioned, the Power of Attorney on the basis of which sale deeds were executed contained

¶99

8 1987 SCC Online Cal 8: AIR 1988 Cal 312

¶100

9 2016 SCC Online Kar 6232

¶101

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶102

¶103

the survey numbers. That shows, the said 25 sites were carved out of Survey Nos.144/3 and 91/2.

¶104

iii) On such sale the purchasers were put in possession of the properties. For about 25 years, neither Parvathi Chettur nor her children question that. For the first time, after 25 years, Nalini Chettur at the instigation of same land grabbers, to make wrongful gain got revenue entries effected in her name, which are stayed by the Deputy commissioner.

¶105

iv) The plaintiffs’ vendors had the benefit of temporary injunction in O.S.No.26169/2019. Considering all these matters on records, the trial Court rightly held that prima facie case is made out.

¶106

v) Since Pattanaduru Agrahara village comes within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, the lands acquired the character of nonagricultural properties, therefore not getting the land converted to non-agricultural use is not fatal. Even if that is so, it is for the local authorities to look into the matter.

¶107

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶108

¶109

vi) The order of granting temporary injunction being discretionary order, unless the same suffers the vice of arbitrariness, capriciousness or perversity, this Court in Appellate jurisdiction cannot interfere with the same.

¶110

In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following judgments.

¶111

1. Punjab National Bank Vs. Parmesh Knitting Works¹⁰

¶112

2. Bank of India v Allibhoy Mohammed¹¹

¶113

3. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana¹²

¶114

4. Jamila Begum v Shami Mohammad¹³ 5. Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale v.Shalinibai Nagappa Sabale¹⁴

¶115

6. M.Gurudas v. Rasaranjan¹⁵

¶116

7. Hemanth V. Sri.N.Jayarama Reddy¹⁶

¶117

8. Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy¹⁷

¶118

9. Laxman Bisan Uke Vs. Ashok Ishwar Shinde¹⁸

¶119

10. Jharkhand State Housing Board v. Didar Singh¹⁹

¶120

10 1985 SCC Online P & H 429

¶121

11 2008 SCC Online Bom 91

¶122

12 (2012) 1 SCC 656

¶123

13 (2019) 2 SCC 727

¶124

14 (2009) 12 SCC 101

¶125

15 (2006) 8 SCC 367

¶126

16 MFA No.8149 of 2017 D.D.13.12.2017

¶127

17 (2008) 4 SCC 594

¶128

18 2018 (4) Mh.L.J.

¶129

19 (2019) 17 SCC 692

¶130

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶131

¶132

11. Sawarni v. Inder Kaur²⁰

¶133

12. Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh²¹

¶134

13. Narasamma Vs. State of Karnataka²²

¶135

14. Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh²³

¶136

15. Bhima Bai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company.²⁴

¶137

16. Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner²⁵

¶138

17. The Commissioner BBMP Vs. Faraulla Khan²⁶

¶139

18. Jitendra Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh²⁷

¶140

Learned Counsel on both side though relied

¶141

on number of citations on the principle of granting injunction, the cardinal principle laid down in all those said judgments are as follows:

¶142

(i) An order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC being discretionary order, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the same unless such order is perverse, arbitrary or capricious.

¶143

(ii) To get the relief of temporary injunction, the

¶144

applicant has to satisfy the prima facie case.

¶145

20 (1996) 6 SCC 223

¶146

21 (1997) 7 SCC 137

¶147

22 (2009) 5 SCC 591

¶148

23 (1993) 4 SCC 403

¶149

24 (2019) 3 SCC 191

¶150

25 (2007) 6 SCC 186

¶151

26 Spl. Leave to Appeal (C) No.5743/2020

¶152

27 Spl. Leave to Petition (C) No.13146/2021

¶153

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶154

¶155

(iii) Prima facie case means the prima facie case

¶156

of legal right of the applicant and injury to such right. The applicant has to satisfy that there is a case to go for trial and his case is not vexatious.

¶157

(iv) On satisfying first requirement, the applicant has to satisfy that balance of convenience lies in his favour.

¶158

( v) The applicant has to satisfy that if temporary injunction is not granted, he/she will be put to irreparable injury.

¶159

In the light of the aforesaid principles, this Court has to see that the plaintiffs have made-out the prima facie case.

¶160

It was not disputed that Nalini Chettur’s mother Smt.Parvathi Chettur was the owner of 5 acres in land bearing old Sy.No.40 new Sy.No.144/3 and Sy.No.91/2 of Pattandur Agrahara village. The plaintiffs claim that Nalini Chettur, as Power of Attorney holder of Parvathi Chettur, has executed the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule sites on 29.09.1994. To

¶161

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶162

¶163

substantiate the said contentions, they produced the copies of Power of Attorney and sale deeds dated 29.09.1994.

¶164

Disputing the execution of such documents and contending that no such sites exist, defendants claimed that, if there were sale deeds, there should have been revenue entries in favour of the purchasers, but upto 2019, the revenue entries stood in the name of Parvathi Chettur. The plaintiffs claimed that, in the village panchayath Khata register entries were changed in their names and the tax was collected from them.

¶165

Though Parvathi Chettur died on 05.07.2008, Nalini Chettur and her brother did not get their names entered in the revenue records upto 2019. There was no explanation for that. Getting their names entered in revenue records was initial step to meet the contentions of the defendants that, there was no conversion of the land. The plaintiffs produced the Khata register extract issued by Mahadevapura Town Municipal Council. They also produced tax paid receipts

¶166

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶167

¶168

and there were khata entries in the names of purchasers. Under Section 114 illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is a presumption that the official acts have been regularly performed. When the registered sale deeds were not challenged for 25 years, it cannot be said that the case of the plaintiffs was vexatious.

¶169

Even with regard to the Power of Attorney, Section 85 of the Evidence Act states that the Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a Power of Attorney executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public etc., was so executed and authenticated.

¶170

Neither Parvathi Chettur during her life time nor after her death, Nalini Chettur challenged those sale deeds initiating any legal proceedings. Having regard to the above said legal presumptions, the trial Court was justified in holding that the plea of the defendants that the Power of Attorney and sale deeds were not genuine documents have to be decided on trial.

¶171

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶172

¶173

So far as identity of the property, it is true that in the sale deeds survey numbers of the property were not mentioned and only sites numbers were mentioned. But in the Power of Attorney relied upon by the plaintiffs, on the basis of which Nalini Chettur said to have executed sale deeds, both the site numbers and survey numbers of the land were mentioned. Taking note of that fact, the trial Court rightly opined that the site numbers mentioned in the sale deeds are co-relatable to Sy.No.144/3 and Sy.No.91/2 and contention of the defendants about identity of the properties cannot be accepted.

¶174

When there are registered sale deeds, mere non-mentioning of the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue records also cannot be blown out of proportion. The Thasildar’s endorsement dated 30.10.2019 about non-existence of site in Sy.No.144/3 and Sy.No.91/2, does not advance the case of the defendants in the light of aforesaid legal presumptions. That issue has to be decided on trial.

¶175

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶176

¶177

Another contention was that the land was not converted to non-agricultural use and plaintiffs did not produce any approved lay-out plan, therefore, existence and identity of the property was not prima facie established.

¶178

As already pointed-out, neither Parvathi Chettur nor her heirs challenged the validity of the sale deeds on any such grounds. Admittedly, the land is covered under Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court J.M.Narayana & Ors. Vs. Corporation of the city of Bengaluru & Ors.²⁸ has held that the moment the land is included in the municipal limits that loses the character of agricultural land. There is no merit in the contention that the said principle was rendered only for the purpose of payment of Court Fee.

¶179

The other contention was that Balakrishna Chettur was also necessary party to the suit and the suit is not maintainable for not seeking declaration of

¶180

28 ILR 2005 KAR 60

¶181

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶182

¶183

title. So far as non-joinder of necessary parties, the suits were for bare injunction. It was not the case of the plaintiffs that Balakrishna Chettur caused any interference or tried to alienate. Therefore, the said contention cannot be countenanced.

¶184

So far as maintainability of the suit for not seeking declaration, learned Counsel for defendants seeks support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar’s case referred to supra. In para 21 of the said judgment, while summarizing the question with regard to suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶185

“21. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:

¶186

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's

¶187

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶188

¶189

lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter .

¶190

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

¶191

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

¶192

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to

¶193

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶194

¶195

title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property . The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.”

¶196

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶197

Reading of the full judgment in Anathula

¶198

Sudhakar’s case referred to supra shows that merely because the defendant challenged title of plaintiffs, plaintiffs need not seek declaration in all cases and only if there is cloud on the title of the plaintiff, she/he has to seek declaration.

¶199

In the case on hand, Parvathi Chettur during her life, did not challenge the title of the vendors of the plaintiffs. The properties in question are the vacant

¶200

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶201

¶202

sites, except few temporary structures. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to accept the contention that the suit was prima facie not maintainable for not seeking declaration of title. In the light of the above discussion this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case.

¶203

So far as the balance of convenience, the very fact of the defendants disputing title and possession of the plaintiffs shows their interference. Though the title deeds relied on by the plaintiffs are of the year 1994, they are facing threats of dispossession and alienation in the hands of the defendants at this length of time. Having invested their money, if they are dispossessed or the properties are alienated that leads to multiplicity of the proceedings. Thereby the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable injury. If the defendants succeed in the defence on a trial, they can deal with the property and until decree is rendered on adjudication, the right of the plaintiffs have to be protected.

¶204

MFA No.2033/2021 C/w MFA No.2034/2021

¶205

¶206

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal position, this Court does not find any perversity, capriciousness or arbitrariness in the orders of the trial Court. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed.

¶207

Sd/JUDGE

¶208

KSR/KGR

Sri.K.Venkataprasad v. Sri.H.J.Siwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.Venkataprasad v. Sri.H.J.Siwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer Vs Rangaswamy

Sri K a Sathyan Vs Sri Seenappa

Dalu @ Dali Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishal Industries Vs the General Manager

The National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri M B Puttarudraiah

Sri Asrar a Sharif Vs Smt. Lakshmi