The Karnataka Co. Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. Vs Smt v Sowjanya

THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD., KMF COMPLEX, P.B. NO.2915, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR-ADMINISTRATION SMT. PADMAVATHI. …APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI MALLAPURAM KESAVAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. V. SOWJANYA W/O SRI V. MADHUSUDHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.118, ‘D’ BLOCK, DEFENSE LAYOUT, 1^ST MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, SAHAKARA NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 092. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P. MIR MINHAAJ AHMED AND PARVEEZ AHAMED M.R., ADVOCATES) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.2301/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCCH.11), DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 OF CPC.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:18963 MFA No. 7254 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the order dated 14.02.2025, passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.2301/2022 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil

¶22

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (‘Trial Court’ for short), wherein I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property has been rejected and I.A.No.2 filed by the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC came to be allowed and the ex parte temporary injunction order dated 13.04.2022 was vacated.

¶23

Brief facts:

¶24

2. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for bare

¶25

injunction claiming that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and the defendant is interfering

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18963 MFA No. 7254 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

with such possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property originally belonged to the plaintiff and continues to remain in his possession. It is stated that the acts of the defendant in forming layout and interfering with the suit schedule property are illegal.

¶29

The defendant on the other hand contend that the property forms part of the layout developed through a Vinayaka Housing Co-operative Society, the sites have been formed and allotted and third party rights have already been intervened. It is stated that the plaintiff is not in possession and the suit is not maintainable without declaration. The defendant also brought on record that the plaintiff had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.12025/2000, wherein this Court observed that once sites have already been released, houses have come up, the petitioner was relegated to Civil Court for redressal.

¶30

The Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, has held that the

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18963 MFA No. 7254 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie possession and the suit schedule property is already developed into sites and third party rights exist. The dispute involves serious questions of title and the plaintiff has not sought declaration of title. Accordingly, the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the three ingredients for injunction i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Hence, the application for temporary injunction was rejected.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that

¶35

the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the injunction by placing undue emphasis on title dispute. It is submitted in a suit for bare injunction that possession alone is relevant and the plaintiff has produced material to show possession and even if title is disputed, injunction can be granted.

¶36

Learned counsel placed reliance on the following

¶37

decisions:

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18963 MFA No. 7254 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

i. Smt. Rathnamma Vs. B.A. Srinivasa Gupta and Others¹ (Rathnamma).

¶41

ii. K. Ramasamy Vs. Ayyasamy² (K. Ramasamy) by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

¶42

iii. Sri T.N. Thimmarajachar Vs. Sri K.R. Sathyanarayana³ (T.N.

¶43

Thimmarajachar).

¶44

iv. Putlabai Vs. Vaijnath and Others⁴ (Putlabai) .

¶45

v. Mohandas Dattaram Prabhu and Others Vs. U.F.M Mukund Honnappa Naik⁵ ( Mohandas Dattaram Prabhu) .

¶46

vi. U. P. Jal Nigam Lucknow Through its Chairman and Another Vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and Others⁶ (U. P. Jal Nigam Lucknow) .

¶47

To contend that injunction application is maintainable despite title dispute and the interim relief cannot be

¶48

1 1999 (1) Kar. L.J. 577

¶49

2 Second Appeal (MD) No.765/2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2/2014

¶50

3 WP No.8980/2021 D.D 11.01.2022

¶51

4 ILR 2005 KAR 5155

¶52

5 ILR 2003 KAR 2421

¶53

6 (1996) 3 SCC 124

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18963 MFA No. 7254 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

denied on technical grounds. Further that the Courts must consider all the material aspects and the appellate Court must interfere and the Trial Court order is erroneous.

¶57

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property has already been converted into sites, allotted to members and developed with houses. It is submitted that in W.P.No.12025/2000, this Court has already held that layout has been formed and sites released. Relief cannot be granted in jurisdiction. The plaintiff must approach Civil

¶58

Court. It is submitted that the present suit is only for injunction without seeking declaration of title, despite serious dispute. Further, it is submitted that necessary parties such as the Bengaluru Development Authority, Vinayak Housing Co-operative Society have not been impleaded, and the plaintiff has failed to establish possession and his legal right over the suit schedule property.

¶59

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18963 MFA No. 7254 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

It is submitted that when no right flows,

¶62

injunction cannot be granted and granting of injunction when there is a title dispute is contrary to settled title proposition. It is submitted that in a suit for injunction only when possession is established, the plaintiff is entitled for injunction.

¶63

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶64

submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:

¶65

“Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants any interference by this Court?”

¶66

This Court in the earlier proceedings in W.P.12025/2000 has observed as under:

¶67

“Considering the fact that the BDA has already released sites and houses have come up, this Court is not in a position to consider the prayer of the petitioner. Even if the second respondent has illegally allotted the sites to its members in respect of the petitioner’s property, the same will not bind

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:18963 MFA No. 7254 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court for its redressal.”

¶72

Emphasis supplied

¶73

This Court observed that the sites have been

¶74

formed and released, houses have come up and even if respondent No.2- Vinayak Housing Cooperative Society has illegally allotted the sites to its members in respect of the petitioner's property, the same will not bind the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to approach the Civil Court. This clearly indicates that the nature of dispute is civil and factual and the petitioner was directed to approach the Civil Court.

¶75

The suit is one for bare injunction. In such suit, the Court must examine the possession as on the date of the suit. Title becomes relevant only incidentally. However, where title is seriously disputed and possession is not established, the plaintiff's injunction cannot be granted. The material on record indicates that the property has been converted into layout, sites have been formed

¶76

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:18963 MFA No. 7254 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

and houses have come up. Thus, the prima facie case lies in favour of the defendant/allottee and the plaintiff has failed to produce convincing material to establish possession. It is also to be noted that the plaintiff has not impleaded the BDA or the Vinayak Housing Co-operative Society in a case involving layout formation and allotment of sites. These parties are necessary and proper parties.

¶79

The judgments relied by the petitioner in Putlabai ’s case holds injunction maintainable despite dispute. However, only when possession is established, the said judgment is not applicable as no possession is proved. The other judgments in the case of Rathnamma , T.N. Thimmarajachar, K. Ramasamy , Mohandas Dattaram Prabhu , and U. P. Jal Nigam Lucknow , all emphasize that an interim relief cannot be denied on technical grounds. Rathnamma ’s case relates not to deny

¶80

on technical grounds and rejection is not technical but lack of possession and merits. T.N. Thimmarajachar ’s case relates to framing of issue not applicable to the present

¶81

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:18963 MFA No. 7254 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

facts. In K. Ramasamy ’s judgment, it emphasizes a strict proof of possession and when the possession in the earlier writ petition has already been held that the sites have been formed and houses are built and when the plaintiff was directed to approach the Civil Court, without establishing the possession over the schedule property, was not entitled for injunction. In Mohandas Dattaram Prabhu ’s judgment, this Court, has held that appellate Court must correct the errors. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Trial Court's reasoning does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. U. P. Jal Nigam Lucknow ’s judgment is not applicable to the present facts since the Apex Court held that rights cannot be claimed contrary to the established legal possession. In fact, this supports the respondent.

¶84

The plaintiff has failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury as no proof of possession and the balance of convenience lies with the persons in settled position and the Trial Court has

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:18963 MFA No. 7254 of 2025

¶86

11 -

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

rightly appreciated the material on record and correctly applied the settled principles governing injunction warranting no interference by this Court, accordingly the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed .

¶91

ii. The order passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in rejecting I.A.No.1 for temporary injunction and allowing I.A.No.2 for vacating the interim order stands confirmed .

¶92

Sd/-

¶93

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶94

AT

¶95

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67

The Karnataka Co. Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Smt v Sowjanya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Co. Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Smt v Sowjanya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Pandu Kumar. P Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Badriprasad @ Bhadri Vs the State by

Sri. D. T. Ningaraja Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (v)

Sri Balakrishna N Vs Sri D Sundar Das

Smt T a Latha Vs Sri T D Eshwar

Dr a K Merchant Vs the State of Karnataka