Appeal against vacating of temporary injunction in a suit for declaration and possession where the plaintiffs challenged a gift deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2. The High Court found the plaintiff had taken inconsistent stands in earlier proceedings and upheld the trial court's finding of unclean hands.
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 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2382 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU -562 123
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.N.ROOPA FOR SRI.N.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA T., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 16.02.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.686/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.Nos.1,3 and 5 in O.S.686/2022 dated 16.02.2024 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi, the appellant/plaintiff is before this court.
death of the plaintiff's father, the defendant No.1 suppressing the true facts had got mutated their name in the revenue records and thereafter fraudulently gifted the property in favour of defendant No. 2. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff No.2 along with the mother and plaintiff No.4 had sold their shares in favour of one S.A.Azeez in the year 2002-2003. Sri Chikka Kempaiah brother of defendant No.1 had sold his 38 guntas in Sy.No.14 to S.A.Azeez and the revenue entries mutated in the name of S.A. Azeez. In column 12 of RTC reflected the name of Smt. Papamma, based on which the plaintiff has approached the court. It is the case of the defendant that the property is validly transferred to defendant No.2 and hence the interim order already granted needs to be vacated. Thereafter the court has also considered the plea of defendant with regard to the forgery committed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contention in the cross-examination in O.S. No.832/2014 is that Chikka Thimmaiah and Patel Thimmaiah are the same persons. The contention of the defendant in the present suit is that Chikka Thimmaiah and Patel Thimmaiah are two different persons. The court had perused the plaint exhibits and depositions which shows that the plaintiff’s have
themselves stated that they are two different persons. Basing on this the court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, the court considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court where in it is held that the party who comes to the court with unclean hands is not entitled for equitable remedy of injunction and further the court felt that the plaintiff’s have not made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience is not in favour of plaintiff and there is no case of hardship. Accordingly dismissed the petition and vacated the interim order granted by the court. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this court.
perused the entire material on record. This is a suit filed for declaration and also the relief of recovery of possession and injunction. Now the injunction that is sought is not to alienate the properties and also the other relief is the gift deed dated 08.03.2018 is not binding on them. It is also an admitted fact that the defendants are in possession of the property. When the plaintiff was seeking injunction they have to come before the court with clean hands. They can’t afford to suppress or misrepresent the facts. Looking at the earlier suit, the stand
NC: 2024:KHC:37290 MFA No. 2382 of 2024
taken there and the stand in the present suit, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had come to the court with unclean hands and he is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. This court is of the considered opinion that the trial court had rightly given a finding basing on the material which is before the court. This court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial court.
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly vacated the interim injunction granted to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Sharadamma
Sri Shantharaju
Smt. Saraswathi
Sri Puttesha
Smt. Lakshmamma
Sri Doddakempaiah
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
