Single Judge High Court Karnataka set aside interim injunction granted by Trial Court in a dispute over absolute ownership and alleged fraud. Appeal held partly allowed; status quo directed for open site disposal.
Set aside order granting injunction; maintain status quo; direct expeditious disposal.
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.
M.F.A.NO.378/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.378/2021(CPC)
BETWEEN:
NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/A NO.66, 5TH MAIN ROAD PRAMOD LAYOUT, PANTARAPALYA BENGALURU – 560 026 … APPELLANT
(BY SRI.NATARAJU T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
PRESIDENT OF CHAMUNDESHWARI TRUST R/AT CHAMUNDINAGARA EEERANNAGUDDA
BENGALURU – 560 085
M.F.A.NO.378/2021
2
CHAMARAJAPETE
BENGALURU – 560 018 … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIKANTH N.V. ADV. FOR R1; SRI.A.C.MALLESHA, ADV. FOR R2; SRI.K.DILIP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.2 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.4547/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH NO.19, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 AND 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court restraining him from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment, defendant No.1 has preferred the above appeal.
For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred henceforth according to their ranks before the trial court.
M.F.A.NO.378/2021
3
M.F.A.NO.378/2021
4
M.F.A.NO.378/2021
5
Katha of the suit property continued in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff shall be presumed to be in possession of the property.
9. The defendants challenged the
maintainability of the suit on the ground that the sale deed dated 21.02.2017 was not sought to be cancelled and as per the sale deed the first defendant is put in possession of the property. The trial Court also observed that defendant No.1 may be title holder. But, in view of the khatha entry, plaintiff shall be put in possession of the property.
M.F.A.NO.378/2021
6
the trial Court acted contrary to the material on record in granting injunction only based on the revenue entries. Therefore, the order suffers perversity.
The appeal is partly allowed.
Since the subject matter of the suit is admittedly open site, the parties shall maintain status quo till disposal of the suit. The parties shall cooperate for disposal of the suit.
The trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
akc
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial Court's order granting injunction based solely on revenue entries without cancellation of the sale deed.
Whether the trial Court's reliance on Khatha entries to presume possession was perverse given the admitted delivery of possession.
Whether directions should be issued for the maintenance of status quo and expeditious disposal of the underlying suit.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Narasimhaiah
Sri G Prakash
Sri Ramu
The Sub Registrar
K.S. Mudagal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court