Writ petition filed by defendant challenging order granting temporary injunction not to alienate suit property. High Court found no error in appellate court's decision, noting prima facie case and irreparable loss, and dismissed petition.
Writ petition dismissed; suit directed for disposal within three months.
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:28395 WP No. 8084 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 8084 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MEER KUDARATH ALI S/O LATE MEER JAFFER AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O KADRI MOHALLA OPP.TO NALAGANGAMMA TEMPLE NEAR VENKATESHWAR ATALKIES KOLAR TOWN -563 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAPPA
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT PETECHAMANAHALLI
NC: 2024:KHC:28395 WP No. 8084 of 2018
KOLAR TALUK- 563 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AMARESH A.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3 V/O/D 18.04.2022 R2 & R3 ARE TREATED AS LR’S OF DEAD R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-E THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.12.2017 IN M.A.NO.1/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.01/2017 dated 07.12.2017 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar.
come up with the present suit seeking declaration and injunction. In that, the plaintiffs had filed I.A. not to alienate the suit schedule properties. The trial Court had dismissed the I.A. on the ground that there is no material placed before the trial Court to show that he has been in possession of the property right from the date he has purchased it and all the revenue records are in the name of the defendant. There is a sub-division of the property and whether the property which he has purchased and the property subsequently sub-divided is one and the same. Even with regard to that also, no documents were placed before the trial Court. As such, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff had carried the same in M.A.No.01/2017 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar.
pertaining to Sy.No.150. This clearly co-relates to the previous Sy.No.224 to the present Sy.No.150 and this aspect is not noted by the trial Court in its proper perspective. The registered document of an undisputed point of time is relied upon by the plaintiff cannot be undermined. It was barely six months from the date of resurvey measurement that the registered sale deed is executed. Hence, the private parties coming to know the new survey number within a short time is improbable. This seems to be the reason why the old survey number is mentioned in the sale deed and also that the survey settlement is yet to be done and the Court had also observed that mere denial of a registered document by the legal heir of the executant cannot be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that a prima facie case is not made out. The prima facie case is not prima facie success, but an opinion that there exists a triable issue, which requires recording of evidence and decision on merits.
preserve the rights of the parties intact pending disposal of the suit. The appellate Court held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and if such a relief is not granted,
the very right claimed by the plaintiff getting jeopardized cannot be ruled out and accordingly, the Appellate Court had held that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is improper and incorrect and allowed the M.A.
submits that the trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence placed before the Court and rightly come to the conclusion that the relief that is sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted as he has failed to prove the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is submitted that all the revenue records are in the name of defendant which shows that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the property. It is further submitted that the relief that is sought in the main petition is unconnected with what he has sought in the I.A. and he submits that the Appellate Court ought to have dismissed the M.A.
NC: 2024:KHC:28395 WP No. 8084 of 2018
who is claiming such a relief to show a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable loss. Here, it is not a case where the plaintiff had sought for injunction restraining
the defendants from interfering with his property. If that is the case, as rightly held by the trial Court, the plaintiff has to prove
that he has been in possession of the property from the date of purchase of the property in the year 1964. Now the relief that is sought is not to alienate the property. Prima facie, he could show before the Court that he had purchased the property by way of a sale deed and the defendant who is the legal heir of
the original vendor denies the same saying that such a document is not executed and there was a sub-division and all other issues has to be tried by the Court in the trial. But at this
stage, he had made out prima facie case and if such a relief is not granted, it would definitely cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff as the third party rights will be created and the relief that is sought in the petition itself would be frustrated. By giving such a relief, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. The Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the case in its proper perspective and granted injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
MEG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
SD/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the appellate order granting temporary injunction to restrain alienation of suit property.
Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience to grant interim relief pending disposal of the suit.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
MEER KUDARATH ALI
SMT. MUNIYAMMA
C. BYRAPPA
K.C. CHANDANA
K.C.CHANDANA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
