The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14842 MFA No. 1749 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1749 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. GANGAMMA W/O NAGARAJU D/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NAGADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, JANABHARATHI POST, BANGALORE - 560 056. (BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G S, ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
has made out a prima facie case. 6. Therefore, when there is no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff, the order of temporary injunction granted is not correct. In this regard, the order of trial court is liable to be interfered with. Hence, when plaintiff fails to prove prima facie case, nothing remains to convince about the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Therefore, there is no question of granting an order of temporary junction. 7. For the reasons above discussed, I proceed to pass the following:
Arguments
SRI. GURULINGAPPA NEELAPPA PUTTANASHETTY S/O LATE NILLAPPA NINGAPPA PATTANASHETTI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.637, 8TH B MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KRISHNA. R, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT) …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 117/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE 24TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO. 6) ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14842 MFA No. 1749 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2025 passed on IA No.1 filed under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, by the Court of XXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No.6) in O.S.No.117/2025, thereby, against the order of grant of temporary injunction this appeal is filed. 2. It is the simple case of plaintiff that suit is filed for permanent injunction claiming that plaintiff is the owner and in possession of suit schedule site. Admittedly, suit schedule site is a vacant site. The plaintiff is claiming that he is the owner of property through virtue of sale deed dated 27.05.2002 purchased by General for Power of Attorney holder of children of late Ajjappa namely, Javaraiah, Molaiah, Chitrappa and Katappa, but the plaintiff has not produced GPA copy. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14842 MFA No. 1749 of 2025 3. It is the case of plaintiff that in respect of said property, khata has been effected and tax paid receipts have been produced. It is the case of plaintiff that this site is formed in land bearing Sy.No.44/2 measuring 1 acre, but defendant has stated that originally land bearing Sy.No.44/2 (new Sy.No.44/3) was 3 acres 7 guntas and the defendant's father - Chikkanna had purchased property of 2 acres 7 guntas in Sy.No.44/2, out of total extent of 3 acres 7 guntas. The trial court in its order at paragraph Nos.31 and 32 stated that during the lifetime of Chikkanna, khatas were not mutated and thereafter his children have got mutated by taking recourse before the Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly, in the year 2010 vide MR No.7/2010-11 khatas have been mutated in the names of children of Chikkana to the extent of 2 acres 7 guntas. 4. Originally the land was numbered as Sy.No.44/2 and thereafter new Sy.No. 44/3 is assigned. Therefore, the trial court assigned the reasons and gave - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14842 MFA No. 1749 of 2025 finding that all the documents demonstrate that defendant and her family members are in undisturbed peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.No.44/2 (new Sy.No.44/3) and they have put up compound wall to protect their possession and some portion of the western side of property acquired by earlier Panchayat (now BBMP) for formation of road, which shows that the defendant is the owner and in possession of said Sy.No.44/2 (new Sy.No.43/2) of Nagadevanahalli village. 5. Now, it is contended by the defendant that suit site property is coming within 2 acres of land, but plaintiff is claiming it is coming within the remaining 1 acre of land. The plaintiff has not produced any document to show that this suit property is coming within remaining 1 acre of land, which is not purchased by the defendant's father - Chikkana. The defendant is claiming her title in respect of suit property through her grandfather that Ajjappa and children have sold 2 acres 07 guntas on 03.01.1948. Further it is the case of defendant that Chikkanna was in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14842 MFA No. 1749 of 2025 possession and enjoyment of 2 acres 07 guntas of land till his death on 30.05.2000. Since the defendant and her family members are illiterates and have no worldly knowledge affairs regarding mutating their names in the records, subsequently in the year 2010 the vendors of plaintiff started interfering with the defendant’s possession over suit property. Though survey number mentioned in the khata is Sy.No.44/2, but undisputedly defendant is the owner of Sy.No.44/2 (old Sy.No.44/3) to the extent of 2 acres 07 guntas. When this being the contention, the plaintiff ought to have made a prima facie case to show that this particular suit schedule site is coming within remaining 1 acre of land, but no document is produced in this regard. Hence, the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case. Hence, the trial court has committed error by granting interim order of injunction in this regard without satisfying itself that plaintiff has made out prima facie case. Therefore, when plaintiff has not made out prima facie case, as above discussed, to show that his property is coming within remaining 1 acre of land and unless that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14842 MFA No. 1749 of 2025 is shown prima facie, it cannot be said that the plaintiff
Decision
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 12.02.2025 passed on IA No.1 filed under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, by the Court of XXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14842 MFA No. 1749 of 2025 Bangalore City (CCH No.6) in O.S.No.117/2025, is set aside. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42