Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Shantadurga Kumbarjuvenkarin Devasthan, filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the courts below dismissing its application for temporary injunction. The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of a property known as 'Pandavwada' bearing survey no. 57/10 in Orgao village, admeasuring 6125 square metres. It alleged that on 19.02.2012, the respondent and his attorney trespassed into the house on the property, broke open the lock, removed Mangalore tiles, wooden beams and rafters, and started digging a pit for RCC foundation. The petitioner lodged a police complaint and filed a suit on 22.02.2012 seeking injunction and damages, along with a temporary injunction application. The respondent contended that they were mundkars of the suit house and that the survey records showed the house belonged to the respondent's father. The trial court dismissed the temporary injunction application, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The High Court, in its judgment dated 04.10.2012, held that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence, including survey records and other documents, which prima facie showed that the respondent was in possession and had mundkar rights. The petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in its favor. The court found no perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with possession and carrying out construction in the suit property - The courts below found that the respondent had established mundkar rights and possession based on survey records and other documents, and the petitioner failed to show better title or possession - Held that the findings of the courts below were based on appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference under Article 227 (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner seeking to restrain the respondent from interfering with possession and carrying out construction in the suit property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the courts below dismissing the temporary injunction application.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- mundkar rights
- possession
- survey records
