Plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction challenged rejection of his temporary injunction application by the trial court and its confirmation on appeal. The High Court held that revenue entries in his name lacked presumptive value since his sale deed was unregistered, so he failed to prove possession.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:43096 WP No. 11245 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11245 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M ANWAR @ ANWAR JI, S/O LATE MOHIUDDIN SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O H.NO.6, TRIVENI CIRCLE, KATHYAMARANAHALLI BADAVANE, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MYSURU-570019 MYSURU DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M KRISHNAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RESPONDENT 1 & 2 ARE R/AT KYATHYAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, (K N PURA), MYSURU 570019 MYSORE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH C. M., ADV. FOR R1 & R2.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.16.04.2021 PASSED ON IA I FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 CPC IN OS.NO.397/2019 BY THE COURT OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.07.04.2022 PASSED IN MA NO.55/2021 BY THE COURT II ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU AS AT ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO.I FILED BY THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 CPC BEFOER THE TRIAL COURT VIZ., COURT OF THE PRL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU IN O.S.NO.397/2019 ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.397/2019 on the file of Prl. I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court' for short) has filed this petition challenging an order dated 16.04.2021 by which an application for interim injunction was rejected. He has also challenged the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in MA No.55/2021 by which the
NC: 2024:KHC:43096 WP No. 11245 of 2022
order of Trial Court refusing to grant injunction was confirmed.
respondents herein were defendants in the suit.
restored and she continued in possession and enjoyment
of the suit property. The suit property was sold by Smt.
Adambi to the plaintiff in terms of an unregistered sale deed dated 25.01.2001 for valuable consideration and he was placed in possession and peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff contends that the suit
property is now included in the limits of Mysuru City Corporation (MCC). He further claimed that he had constructed some temporary shops in the suit schedule property and had obtained electrical and water connection to the shops so constructed. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants though had no manner of right, title or interest in the suit schedule property but had illegally occupied small portion of the land in Sy.Nos.45 and 46 which lay adjacent to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff therefore, sought for relief of perpetual injunction. Along with the suit, he filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 for interim injunction contending that the defendants were interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property.
2 who claimed that Smt. Adambi was not alive and the plaintiff had concocted documents in respect of suit schedule property. They denied that the plaintiff had put up temporary shops in the suit schedule property. They contended that the trade license obtained by the plaintiff was cancelled by Mysuru City Corporation in terms of notice dated 29.06.2019. They contended that the State Government had granted Sy.No.39/1, 41/1 and 44 to 46 measuring 3.26 acres to Sri. Hulliyamma temple of Kyathamaranahalli village in the year 2002. Therefore, they claimed that they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands prior to the year 2002. They contend that the above said lands by adjacent to the suit schedule land bearing Sy.No.64. They claimed that the suit schedule property was wrongly described as 'Halla' towards western side while the land bearing Sy.Nos.45 and 46 lay abutting the suit schedule property. They further claimed that they were in possession of the suit schedule
property for over a period of 50 years. They claimed that the devotees of Sri. Hulliyamma temple were cultivating the said land and raised arecanut, mango and eucalyptus trees. They also claimed that the devotees were also cultivating horticulture crops and vegetables. They claimed that they had constructed 35 shops in Sy.No.64 facing Mahadevapura Main Road and had leased the said shops to the tenants. They further claimed that they obtained water and electricity connections in the name of Sri. Hulliyamma temple and in the name of Mudde Madappa and Basavaraju. With these contentions, they claimed that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, he is not entitled for interim injunction. The application for interim injunction was also opposed on the same lines.
document the plaintiff had produced to establish his possession was the revenue record. However, it found that the revenue record was contrary to the sale deed produced by the plaintiff himself. Therefore, the Court held that there is no prima-facie for grant of interim injunction and consequently rejected the application filed
by the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the plaintiff in M.A.No.55/2021 was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed.
the plaintiff is in possession of the property for several years and the revenue records are entered in his name and therefore, this is sufficient for the purpose of deciding the application for interim injunction. He further contends that the plaintiff has put up temporary shops in the suit schedule property and existence of shops was not disputed by the defendants. He contended that the defendants had also filed suit in O.S.No.399/2019 before the same Court and that the Court while considering the application for
injunction in that suit held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application.
terms of an unregistered sale deed dated 25.01.2001. Therefore, unless the sale is executed in accordance with law, no title flew to the plaintiff. The revenue entries brought about in respect of the suit schedule property is in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, when there was no sale deed in the name of petitioner, there is no basis to enter his name in the revenue records and hence the entries in the revenue records have no presumptive value. The Trial Court has rightly considered the same and has rightly held that the plaintiff has not proved his possession over the suit schedule property. Merely because in the suit filed by the defendants, there is a stray observation that the plaintiff was in possession that does not suffice. In the suit filed by the plaintiff, he has to independently establish that he was placed in possession of the suit schedule property and that his possession had to be protected. In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction. Consequently, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed .
NC: 2024:KHC:43096 WP No. 11245 of 2022
pending applications also stand disposed of .
file appropriate application before the Trial Court which
shall be considered in accordance with law.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved prima facie possession of the suit property to entitle him to interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC despite an unregistered sale deed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. M Anwar @ Anwar Ji
Sree Hulliamma Praja Seva Samithi
Sree Hulliamma Temple
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
