High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Property Injunction Case — Trial Court Erred in Dismissing Injunction Applications Without Considering Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience. Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC — Court Held That Plaintiff's Possession and Title Must Be Protected Pending Suit.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 14:38:03

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Smt. Jagadishwari, filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 25599/2023. The Trial Court had dismissed I.A. Nos.1, 2, and 3 filed by the appellant (plaintiff) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction against the respondents (defendants) from interfering with her possession and from alienating the suit property. The appellant claimed to be the owner and in possession of the suit property based on a registered sale deed dated 20.06.2022 executed by the original owner. The respondents, including the legal heirs of the original owner and a partnership firm, contested the claim, asserting that the sale deed was fraudulent and that the appellant had no title or possession. The Trial Court dismissed the injunction applications, holding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the Trial Court's order was cryptic and did not properly consider the documents on record, including the registered sale deed, tax paid receipts, and other material. The High Court held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience was in her favor, as she was in possession and any interference would cause irreparable injury. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court's order, and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellant's possession and from alienating the suit property until the disposal of the suit.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC - The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's applications for injunction without properly appreciating the documents on record, including the registered sale deed and tax receipts, which established a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff. The Court held that the Trial Court's order was cryptic and did not consider the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. (Paras 5-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Appellate Jurisdiction - Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC - The High Court, in an appeal against an order refusing injunction, can re-appreciate the evidence and interfere if the Trial Court's order is perverse or suffers from legal infirmity. The Court set aside the impugned order and granted injunction in favor of the plaintiff. (Paras 11-15)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the applications for temporary injunction (I.A. Nos.1 to 3) filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, thereby failing to protect the plaintiff's alleged possession and interest in the suit property.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 25599/2023, and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellant's possession and from alienating the suit property until the disposal of the suit.

Law Points

Temporary injunction
prima facie case
balance of convenience
irreparable injury
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
Section 151 CPC
Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:2577

MFA No. 6094 of 2023 (CPC)

2024-01-19

H.P. Sandesh

NC: 2024:KHC:2577

Sri. Vevek Subba Reddy (Senior Counsel for Smt. Varalakshmi P, Advocate) for appellant; Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa (Senior Counsel for Sri. Yaseen Babu, Advocate) for R5 to R6; Sri. C.S. Prasanna Kumar (Senior Counsel for Sri. Allah Bakash.M, Advocate) for R1 to R4; Smt. Dheemanthika, Advocate for R7

Smt. Jagadishwari

Smt. M. Revathi and Others

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against order refusing temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the Trial Court's order dismissing I.A. Nos.1 to 3 and to grant temporary injunction restraining respondents from interfering with her possession and from alienating the suit property.

Filing Reason

Appellant claimed to be the owner and in possession of the suit property based on a registered sale deed, and alleged that respondents were attempting to interfere with her possession and alienate the property.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed I.A. Nos.1 to 3 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC on 25.07.2023.

Issues

Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the applications for temporary injunction without properly considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Whether the appellant is entitled to an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that she is the owner and in possession of the suit property based on a registered sale deed, and that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the documents on record. Respondents contended that the sale deed was fraudulent and that the appellant had no title or possession, and that the Trial Court's order was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

In an appeal against an order refusing temporary injunction, the appellate court can re-appreciate the evidence and interfere if the Trial Court's order is cryptic and does not properly consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. A registered sale deed and tax receipts can establish a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, and the balance of convenience lies in protecting the plaintiff's possession pending suit.

Judgment Excerpts

The Trial Court's order is cryptic and does not consider the documents on record. The appellant has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in her favor.

Procedural History

The appellant filed O.S. No. 25599/2023 before the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking permanent injunction and other reliefs. Along with the suit, she filed I.A. Nos.1 to 3 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC for temporary injunction. The Trial Court dismissed these applications on 25.07.2023. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.