Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who claimed to have purchased the suit schedule property in a court auction in 1939, challenged the order dated 13.11.2018 on IA No.1 in O.S.No.183/2018 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kolar and the judgment dated 16.12.2019 in Misc Appeal No.38/2018 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kolar, which granted a temporary injunction in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs. The short point involved was whether the petitioners had demonstrated their possession. Both courts below concurrently held that the respondents/plaintiffs had demonstrated their possession and that apart from the documents evidencing sale of the property in court auction, all the petitioners had was a claim of possession. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court held that the respondents/plaintiffs had demonstrated possession through documents and that the petitioners failed to show possession despite claiming a court auction sale in 1939 - The concurrent findings of the courts below that the respondents had made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience was in their favor were upheld (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who claim to have purchased the suit schedule property in a court auction in 1939, have demonstrated their possession so as to be entitled to vacation of the temporary injunction granted in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned orders are confirmed.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- possession
- court auction sale
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 25
W.P.No.1961/2020 (GM-CPC)
Sri Rahul S Reddy for petitioners, Sri M. Shiva Prakash for respondents
Sri Pattabi Rama Reddy, Sri Muniraja Reddy, P. Krishna Reddy
Sri Vali Reddy, Sri P. Srinivasa Reddy, Sri Ashok Reddy, Sri Muniraja Reddy, Sri Janardhana Reddy, Sri Prakash Reddy, Smt. Lakshmamma
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging orders granting temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the order dated 13.11.2018 on IA No.1 in O.S.No.183/2018 and the judgment dated 16.12.2019 in Misc Appeal No.38/2018.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed to have purchased the suit property in a court auction in 1939 and challenged the temporary injunction granted in favor of respondents/plaintiffs.
Previous Decisions
The trial court granted temporary injunction in favor of respondents/plaintiffs, which was confirmed by the appellate court in Misc Appeal No.38/2018.
Issues
Whether the petitioners demonstrated possession of the suit property to warrant vacation of the temporary injunction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they had purchased the property in a court auction in 1939 and were in possession.
Respondents contended that they were in possession and had made out a prima facie case for injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below that the respondents/plaintiffs had demonstrated possession and made out a prima facie case for temporary injunction were not perverse or illegal, and the petitioners failed to show possession despite claiming a court auction sale in 1939.
Judgment Excerpts
The short point involved is whether the petitioners, who claim to have purchased the suit schedule property in a Court auction in the year 1939 have demonstrated their possession.
Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the respondents/plaintiffs have demonstrated their possession and that apart from the documents evidencing Sale of the property in Court auction, all the petitioners have is a claim of possession.
Procedural History
The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.183/2018 seeking permanent injunction. The trial court allowed IA No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC granting temporary injunction. The petitioners appealed in Misc Appeal No.38/2018, which was dismissed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kolar on 16.12.2019. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
- Constitution of India: Articles 226 and 227
