Plaintiff in a suit for mandatory injunction over alleged encroachment challenged rejection of her interim injunction application by the trial court and appellate court. The High Court found no material showing interference with her possession and dismissed the writ petition.
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:41741 WP No. 3806 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3806 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. K.N. VASANTHA W/O SRI. V.S. SURESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A MALLESHWARANAGARA ARASIKERE TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MURTHY D.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE AT ANNEXURE-J DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.9/2021 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2021 AT ANNEXURE-H, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION
NC: 2024:KHC:41741 WP No. 3806 of 2024
FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 CPC IN O.S NO.599/2018 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S No.599/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Arasikere, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) has filed this petition challenging an order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court in so far as it relates to rejecting the application filed by her under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) and an order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Arasikere (henceforth referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in M.A No.9/2021 confirming the said order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:41741 WP No. 3806 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:41741 WP No. 3806 of 2024
defendant No.1 to remove the compound wall. However, the defendant No.1 insisted to measure the property. Later, after the property was measured, it was found that the defendant No.1 had encroached into 2 to 3 feet on the eastern side and 36 feet on the north to south direction of the suit property. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant No.1 had also installed CCTV camera toward her house. She, therefore, contended that these were illegal acts committed by the defendant No.1 and amounted to violation of privacy of the plaintiff. She therefore sought for the aforesaid reliefs. An application was filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction to restrain the defendants and their agents from interfering with the possession of the suit property by her.
NC: 2024:KHC:41741 WP No. 3806 of 2024
number was not approved by the Town Planning Authority, Hassan. Defendant No.2 claimed that between the land/s in Sy. Nos.341/1 and 336/1, a water channel was laid which was treated as a kharab land. Defendant No.2 claimed that when the owners of the land bearing Sy. No.336/1 and 341/1 formed layout, they had also included the kharab land and formed residential sites in the kharab land. Defendant No.2 contended that the plaintiff had constructed a house in a site formed in Sy. No.341/1 over the water channel. As a result, the free flow of water in the channel was obstructed resulting in the flooding in the layout. Defendant No.2 claimed that defendant No.1 had lodged a complaint against the plaintiff and defendant No.2 before the Lokayukta. Defendant No.2 claimed that the Taluk Surveyor had already identified the Raja kaluve and prepared a sketch and forwarded it to the Tahasildar, Arasikere for needful action. Defendant No.2 therefore, contended that the plaintiff has filed a suit in retaliation to the proceedings initiated before the Lokayukta. The application for interim injunction was also objected on the same lines.
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction. The Trial Court held that the documents prima facie disclosed that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had constructed building/s in the Raja kaluve by showing it as sites. It, therefore, held that the identification of the property claimed by the plaintiff is in dispute.
NC: 2024:KHC:41741 WP No. 3806 of 2024
passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court be set aside and an order of interim injunction be granted.
NC: 2024:KHC:41741 WP No. 3806 of 2024
present, there is nothing on record to show that the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property is threatened or interfered with by the defendants. In view of the above, the Trial Court
and the Appellate court were right in not granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Hence, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
sma
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff's possession was threatened or interfered with so as to warrant interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. K.N. Vasantha
Smt. M.G. Jamunachandra
The Commissioner, Town Municipal Corporation, Arasikere Town and Taluk
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
