Plaintiff in a perpetual injunction suit over a Bangalore site appealed rejection of her interim injunction application. The appellate court held ownership and possession were questions of fact for trial, noted defendants had already constructed a building, and dismissed the appeal with liberty to seek further reliefs.
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 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. V. VANI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D/O A. CHINNASWAMY, W/O VENKATESH, R/AT NO. 741, 5TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, KAMMANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE - 560 084.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMU K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALYANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 043.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI KUMAR M BHANDARE, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED.21.11.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.25876/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU, (CCH-20), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.25876/2021 on the file of the
XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, has filed this appeal, challenging the Order dated 21.11.2022, by which, an application filed by him under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, was rejected.
staying away from the suit property, taking advantage of this, the defendants and their associates had attempted to interfere with her possession and threatened to demolish the compound wall. Therefore, she sought for perpetual injunction against the defendants. Along with the suit, she also filed an application for interim injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession.
They contended that her father did not purchase the property as contended in the plaint. They contended that they were in possession of the suit property and that there were three suits filed against them in O.S.No.25399/2021, O.S.No.443/2021 and another suit. They contended that
the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable. They also opposed the application filed by the plaintiffs for interim injunction and contended that they were in possession of the suit property and hence, no injunction would be granted against him.
that she was not given an opportunity to place the records including the documents of title of her father to the suit property. He submits that the suit property was originally in the name of Mr.S.H.Lobo and executed an Agreement of Sale and Power of Attorney in favour of the father of the plaintiff and authorized him to convey the suit property either by way of sale or otherwise. That consequent to
such power, her father had gifted the suit property to the plaintiff. He further contends that the plaintiff is therefore, the owner of the suit property. He further contends that the defendants, taking advantage of the interim order of injunction granted by the Trial Court, constructed a building. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed an application against the exparte order granted by the Trial Court on an application in I.A.No.3/2023 for taking action against the respondents for putting up the construction over the suit schedule property.
before this Court indicates that a person named Mr.S.H.Lobo had allegedly executed agreement of sale of Site bearing Nos.14 and 15 in Survey Nos.15/5 and 15/6 of Hennur village, measuring 30' x 40' each on 18th December 1989. He had allegedly executed a power of attorney on 26th June 1990, authorising Mr.A.Chinnaswamy to dispose of the property to any person of choice of the attorney Mr.A.Chinnaswamy by any sale/mortgage etc., and to collect the consideration amount on his behalf from the prospective purchaser. However, the gift deed executed by Mr.A.Chinnaswamy does not show that such document was
executed as a power of attorney of Mr.S.H.Lobo. But the said Mr.A.Chinnaswamy had bequeathed the property, by which, he represented that he was the owner of the suit property. The question whether the father of the plaintiff had any right to bequeath the suit property to the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as on the date of suit, are all questions of fact to be ascertained and adjudicated after the trial. Now, that the plaintiff admits that the defendants have constructed a
building over the suit property, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the application for interim injunction as sought for by the plaintiff.
Dismissed. Further, liberty is reserved to the appellant to seek appropriate reliefs against the defendants in respect of the construction already put up by the defendants. If the appellant makes a request in that regard, the Trial Court shall consider the same, in accordance with law.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, all pending applications stand disposed off. In so far as I.A.No.3/2023 is concerned, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file appropriate application before the Trial Court.
Sd/JUDGE
BNV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT:SNN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession of the suit property.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. V. Vani
Smt. Saritha Bai K.M.
Smt. Pushpa
Sri. M. Mahendra
Smt. Latha M.
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
