Appeal against a trial court order rejecting a temporary injunction application in a suit challenging successive sale deeds dating back to 1988. The High Court found no prima facie case or possession by the plaintiffs and dismissed the appeal, upholding the vacation of the interim injunction.
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 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2340 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. N.S.SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARISHA A.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS NOS.11 TO 13 ARE R/AT NO.44, KOTHANUR VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, CLASSIC ORCHARDS LAYOUT, BADAMANAVARTHEKAVAL, SUBRAMANAYAPURA, BENGALURU-560 061.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUMMITH S., SRI. MADHUSUDAN V., & SRI. RAJATH R. HONGAL., ADVOCATES FOR C/R11 TO R13)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.570/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. CCH-7, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AND ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. This matter is listed for admission and the prayer sought before this Court is to set-aside the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting I.A.No.1 and allowing I.A.No.2 vacating the interim order granted by the Trial Court.
the year 2022 and filed the suit in the year 2023 seeking the relief of declaration to declare that plaintiffs are the absolute owners who are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by canceling the alleged sale deed dated 20.06.1988 and also declare the other subsequent sale deeds are executed in favour of the other defendants and sought for cancellation of all the sale deeds and also sought for the relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants and inter-alia sough for the relief of temporary injunction interfering with possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff in disposal of the suit and produced the RTC of the year 2007 and the property was transferred in favour of the subsequent purchasers long back. The defendants appeared and filed objections statement contending that suit property was sold in the year 1988 long back and also thereafter there are 3 sale deeds and property is also exchanged recently the defendant Nos.11 and 13 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The property was converted and even identity of the property
is not possible. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the plaintiffs and defendants, comes to the conclusion that sale was made in the year 1988 long back and there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and property was sold long back and possession was also delivered in favour of the subsequent purchasers in the year 1988 itself and thereafter possession was exchanged in favour of other subsequent purchasers and also comes to the conclusion that if injunction is granted, it will cause hardship in favour defendant Nos.11 to 13 and plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts by not bringing the subsequent developments in Sy.No.80/2A and also property is also not identifiable.
given by the Trial Court is erroneous and it requires interference.
schedule property was exchanged on different persons even defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 10 and defendant Nos.3 to 10 have also sold the property in favour of the defendant Nos.11 to 13 and defendant Nos.11 to 13 are in possession of the property while filing the suit for the declaration as well as seeking the relief of temporary injunction not to interfere with possession, the plaintiff has to place the material before the Court as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs has been in possession of the property and nothing is placed on record, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case. Apart from that property was sold long back in the year 1988 itself and the same has been exchanged between 3 persons and plaintiffs have kept quite from 1988 onwards though they are the majors at the time of property was sold by the father and the same has not been questioned, when such being the case, question of granting the relief of temporary injunction that too not to interfere with the possession of the property does not arise since no
NC: 2024:KHC:49157 MFA No. 2340 of 2023
document is placed before the Court that the plaintiff has been in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and vacated the interim order where possession had passed to subsequent purchasers decades earlier.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. K.N. Prema
Sri. K.N. Ramesh
Sri. K. Mohan
Sri P. Ramachandraju
Sri Ratan Babulal Lath
Sri Tejraj Gulecha
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
