Writ petition filed to quash lower court orders rejecting applications for temporary injunction in a property suit. The court dismissed the petition, holding the plaintiff failed to show encroachment and the lower courts correctly refused injunction.
Writ petition dismissed with no interference in the impugned orders.
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 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.2379 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. V. VENKATESHA, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.43, 9TH CROSS, BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT 3RD STAGE, NEAR CAMBRIDGE COLLEGE, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.G. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
ALL ARE R/AT MUGABALA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C-R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 02.12.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.I, II AND IV IN O.S.NO.235/2021 BY THE HONBLE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSAKOTE VIDE ANNX-C AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 03.01.2022 PASSED IN M.A.NO.112/2021 BY THE HONBLE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner assailing the order dated 02.12.2021 in O.S.No.235/2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hosakote and also order dated 03.01.2022 in M.A.No.112/2021 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
3
injunction stating that he derived the suit schedule property from his father. He further stated in the plaint that his father has purchased the suit schedule property by way of registered sale deed dated 18.05.1984 and the defendants/respondents, who are the adjacent owners of the land, are interfering with the suit schedule property, and as such, the plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.235/2021 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hosakote and along with the suit, plaintiff filed applications I.A-1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., seeking ad interim order of exparte temporary injunction against the defendants/respondents. The defendants/respondents have entered appearance and filed written statement and also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking vacation of the temporary injunction.
4
material on record, by its order dated 02.12.2021, rejected the applications I.A-1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff/petitioner has filed an appeal in M.A.No.112/2021 on the file of the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, and the First Appellate Court, vide order dated 03.01.2022
rejected the appeal with costs and being aggrieved by the same the plaintiff/petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
appearing for the petitioner and also Sri. P.M. Siddamallappa learned counsel appearing for caveatorrespondent No.1.
appearing for the petitioner contended that both the Courts below have not properly considered the
5
admission made by the defendants in the written statement with regard to the measurement of the suit land, and accordingly he submitted that the findings recorded by both the Courts below is contrary to the averments made in the written statement, and as such, the same call for interference in this petition and further submitted that both the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with in this writ petition.
6
petitioner/plaintiff seeking for relief of injunction in respect of the subject land. The
defendants/respondents entered appearance and has disputed the measurement in the schedule property as stated by the plaintiff/petitioner, and accordingly, it is for the plaintiff/petitioner to show encroachment insofar as the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the averments made in the affidavit has rejected applications I.A-1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner on the ground that, the plaintiff/petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for granting temporary injunction. The said order of refusing of injunction has been appreciated by the First Appellate Court in its order dated 03.01.2022. I have carefully considered the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court in Para-19 of the impugned order, wherein the First Appellate Court has held that even if encroachment has been made by the defendants/respondents, and the proposed construction is made on the plaintiff’s property,
7
however, the defendants/respondents are ready to demolish that portion of construction, on their own cost. The said finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is based on the documents produced by the parties with respect to their schedule narrated in the pleadings. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff/petitioner has not made any a ground in support of his case and accordingly, refused to grant temporary injunction and that cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
GRD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the impugned orders refusing temporary injunction in a suit for injunction regarding property dispute.
Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case to show encroachment on the suit schedule property.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. V. Venkatesha
Sri. G.M. Krishnappa
Smt. Manjula
Sri. Sandeep
Sri G.M. Muniraju
E.S.Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
