Appeal against rejection of a temporary injunction application in a property title dispute over land granted to A.Pillappa, where both sides claim through rival GPA holders. The court upheld the defendant's possession findings and dismissed the appeal.
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 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3735 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
AJITNATH SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.135A, C R AVENUE, NO 36, 4TH FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700 007 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR.SANTHOSH S. S/O. SAMBASIVAN S. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI. A. K. JACOB S/O LATE A V KOCHUMMEN AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO 33, MYADARAHALLI VILLAGE SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R ON I.A.NO.1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.4718/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH-32), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH 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 learned counsel for appellant and also learned counsel appearing for respondent.
with the consent of both the parties on merits.
purchased the suit schedule property from his vendor A.Pillappa. Vendor A.Pillappa was represented by his GPA holder Sannamma through a registered sale deed dated 09.11.2006. The family members of A.Pillappa have also executed the sale deed in favour of L.Venkatesh on different dates confirming the sale deed dated 09.11.2006.
It is contended that after purchasing the property they have approached BBMP for transfer of Khatha and same has not been transferred. Hence, W.P.No.8415/2023 was filed and this Court directed the concerned authority to consider the representation and to make Khatha in the name of their company and the same is pending before the BBMP.
NC: 2024:KHC:45289 MFA No. 3735 of 2024
property and made efforts to trespass on 10.07.2023 and hence, filed the suit.
daughters. Hence, sale deed of plaintiff is not having any sanctity under law. Plaintiff is not in possession over the suit schedule property. It is also contended that suits filed by L.Venkatesh in O.S.No.3623/2023 against the plaintiff and others for declaration and he had also challenged the transactions under GPA dated 10.06.2008 alleged to have been executed by L.Venkatesh in favour of K.Hari, sale deed dated 03.05.2012 alleged to have been executed by K.Hari as GPA holder of L.Venkatesh in favour of K.V.Naidu. The alleged vendor of the plaintiff herein and the sale deed dated 22.07.2016 alleged to have been executed by plaintiff's alleged vendor in favour of the plaintiff.
property, he had applied for transferring the revenue records of the said property and the revenue records stand in the name of defendant and he has been paying the taxes. Since, the day of purchase of the said property, he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same.
However, when things stood thus, on 04.07.2021, L.Venkatesh without having any right, title and interest in the said property has appeared along with rowdy elements and tried to cut and remove the barbed wire fence and hence, he was constrained to file the suit O.S.No.3535/2021 against L.Venkatesh and obtained an ad-interim order of temporary injunction.
O.S.No.3535/2021. The name of Sannamma had been
inserted and the name of Puttarajamma was erased. The alleged agreement dated 27.01.1987 is a created document with an intention to knock of the property and contend that not entitled for any relief.
was taken by BBMP diligently as per the order dated 17.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.8415/2023.
vehemently contend that trial Court in detail discussed the material on record and also taken note of the fact that there was a grant in favour of A.Pillappa in the year 1979, who claims that said Pillappa executed GPA in favour of Jacob on 28.08.1989 in respect of 1 acre of land and in turn he had executed the sale deed dated 19.08.2005 in favour of respondent/defendant to the extent of 1 acre 3 guntas of land. Learned counsel would also submit that the sale agreement was also executed in favour of respondent and he had filed suit for specific performance and the same was decreed. The same is challenged before this Court and this Court granted stay. Learned counsel vehemently contend that when the trial Court in detail discussed the material on record and comes to the conclusion that respondent is in possession of the property and when such being the case in order to prove the factum of the possession by this appellant/plaintiff, nothing is placed on record.
and also learned counsel appearing for respondent and also both of them not dispute the fact that property originally belongs to A.Pillappa and the same was granted in the year 1979. The defendant's claim the title based on the GPA executed by A.Pillappa in favour of one Jacob and also he in turn sold the property on 19.08.2005 itself in favour of 1st defendant and also he entered into an agreement of sale to the remaining extent. The plaintiff claims that A.Pillappa only executed power of attorney in favour of Sannamma and Sannamma in turn sold the property in favour of plaintiff vendor and plaintiff vendor also sold the property in favour of plaintiff on 22.07.2016.
deed executed by power of attorney holder in favour of 1st defendant on 19.08.2005 and the same has not been challenged, but now the learned counsel for appellant would submit that suit is filed in 2024 and the same is numbered as O.S.No.2696/2024 and also it is noted that for remaining property the defendants claim that he entered into a sale agreement and a suit was also filed and at the first instance, the suit was decreed and appeal is also filed before this Court. This Court has stayed the judgment and decree. But the fact that trial Court has given a finding that defendant has been in possession of the property has not been reversed by this Court also, only judgment and decree has been stayed.
agreement and delivery of possession and prima facie there was a decree in favour of defendant and also finding was given that the defendant has been in possession of the property, question of granting relief of temporary injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property does not arise.
trial Court in appreciating both the material available on record. The trial Court in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18 of the case of plaintiff and defendant and also taken note of the fact that the original owner had executed the sale deed through power of attorney holder and also one more sale agreement that too in the year 1989 in respect of remaining property, question of setting aside the order does not arise and scope of the First Appellate Authority is also very limited with regard to finding of prima facie case is concerned. Hence, no ground
NC: 2024:KHC:45289 MFA No. 3735 of 2024
to interfere with the order of the trial Court. In view of the
discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is hereby dismissed.
SD/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff company made out a prima facie case for temporary injunction against interference with its possession of the suit property.
Whether the trial Court erred in finding the defendant to be in possession and refusing injunction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajitnath Suppliers Private Limited
Sri. A. K. Jacob
H.P.Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
