The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the lower courts orders granting interim injunction in a property suit. The court held that despite defendants claim of prior agreement and possession, the existence of earlier decree and sale deed justified the injunction.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.2106 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE R/AT SHETTIGERE VILLAGE JALA HOBLI , BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. MAHIMA CHABBRIA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
ALL ARE R/AT SHETTIGERE VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, IN M.A.NO.30/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.194/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND DISMISS I.A.NO.1 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7 in O.S. No.194/2014 pending trial before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court'), challenging the correctness of the Order dated 27.08.2014 by which an application (I.A. No.1) filed by the plaintiffs for interim injunction was allowed and which Order was confirmed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, (henceforth referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in M.A No.30/2014.
4
in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs. The defendants also claimed that the suit in O.S. No.109/1987 filed by Smt. Pillamma, the mother of the plaintiffs against defendant Nos.1 and 7 in the present suit and others for perpetual injunction though decreed, was not executed since it was the defendants in the present suit who were in possession of the suit property. The defendants claimed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had executed an agreement of sale on 30.04.1994 in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant No.1 and the predecessors of defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7.
defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7 filed M.A. No.30/2014 before
5
the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also relied upon the sale deed dated 17.06.1968 and the decree in O.S.No.109/1987 and the fact that the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs predecessors had executed an agreement of sale, which indicated the prior title of the plaintiffs in the suit property and therefore, confirmed the order of temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court by its Order dated 11.12.2014.
defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7 have filed the present petition.
6
against the defendants. He further contended that the defendants were in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have granted an order of temporary injunction arming the plaintiffs with an order to dispossess the defendants from the suit property.
After the death of the plaintiff in O.S. No.109/1987, the plaintiffs who succeeded to the suit property have filed the
7
present suit for injunction. The Trial Court was therefore justified in taking into consideration this fact as well as the fact that the defendants claimed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had executed an agreement of sale in their favour which probabilizes the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the suit property.
There is no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
sma
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the lower court order granting interim injunction in a property dispute subject to prior decree.
Whether the Trial Court correctly relied on prima facie material and prior decree to grant interim injunction despite possession claims by defendants.
Whether the agreement of sale executed by predecessors of plaintiffs in favor of defendants negates the validity of interim injunction.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SHRI RAMANJANAPPA S/O LATE DASAPPA
SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O RAMANJANAPPA
SHRI ANANDA S/O RAMANJANAPPA
SHRI ANJANAPPA S/O LATE RAJANNA
SHRI RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE RAJANNA
SHRI THIMMAIAH S/O LATE DASAPPA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
