Karnataka High Court
Shanta W/O Sidramayya Puranik vs Ashish S/O Basappa Dulange on 24 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7868
MFA No. 200516 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200516 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHANTA W/O SIDRAMAYYA PURANIK
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: PROFESSOR IN HKE SOCEITY'S
V/G WOMEN COLLEGE KALABURAGI,
R/O PLOT NO. 32, NEAR ANAND HOSPITAL,
UDNOOR CROSS, SANTOSH COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINAYAK APTE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH ASHISH S/O BASAPPA DULANGE
COURT OF AGE: 34 YEARS,
KARNATAKA OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE,
R/O GODUTAI NAGAR, NEW JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABURAGI, PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT SOLAPUR, MAHARASTRA-413001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
THE MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING
TO, ALLOW ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND SET-
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.10.2022 PASSED BY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7868
MFA No. 200516 of 2023
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN O.S.NO. 240/2022
ON I.A.NO. I AND REJECT THE I.A. NO.I FILED BY PLAINTIFF/
RESPONDENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the sole defendant
questioning the order passed on an application (I.A.I) filed
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, wherein, the
Trial Court has granted injunction and appellant herein is
restrained from interfering with respondent's peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred
to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit seeking relief
of declaration of ownership and for consequential relief of
injunction based on a registered sale deed dated
27.06.2006 obtained by plaintiff. The plaintiff is asserting
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7868
that he is the absolute owner of plot bearing No.31
measuring 40 ft x 60 ft. in the layout formed in Survey
No.71/1 of Brahampur, Kalaburagi.
4. Defendant is asserting title based on registered
sale deed dated 21.12.1995. Defendant is tracing his right
and title on plot No.27 measuring 40 ft x 25 ft through her
vendor one Kirtamma, who has purchased plot bearing
No.27 on 08.02.1983. Defendant on the basis of
rectification deed executed by her vendor Kirtamma,
wherein, plot No.27 is renumbered as plot No.31, is now
asserting title and is intending to put up construction.
5. The learned counsel representing the
appellant/defendant has vigorously contended that the
Trial Court's order of temporary injunction is flawed and
requires reconsideration by this Court. The defendant,
having acquired a rectification deed, claims to have
secured title over plot No.31. Further, the defendant has
secured a loan and intends to commence construction on
this plot. Therefore, it is argued that the injunction order,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7868
which prevents the defendant from proceeding with
construction, suffers from a degree of perversity and
should be set aside.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff has countered this assertion by
arguing that the plaintiff possesses a lawful title and
peaceful possession over plot No.31, as confirmed by title
documents and the layout plan. The plaintiff purchased
plot No.31 under a valid sale deed for valuable
consideration, and the defendant's vendor originally
acquired plot No.27, a plot distinct from plot No.31 and
rectangular in shape. Thus, the plaintiff's counsel argues
that the rectification deed obtained by the defendant
cannot be ground for claiming plot No.31, given the
plaintiff's legally established title.
7. Upon meticulous examination of the evidence
presented, this Court finds that the defendant's vendor
purchased plot No.27, which was subsequently acquired by
the defendant. Meanwhile, the plaintiff has legally
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7868
purchased plot No.31. The defendant is now claiming plot
No.31 based on a rectification deed executed by her
vendor. The defendant's claim to plot No.31 rests on a
rectification deed, which has yet to be judicially scrutinized
or validated as a basis for title transfer. Generally,
rectification deeds are used to correct errors in legal
documentation, not to substantively alter property
boundaries or ownership. Allowing the defendant to act on
this presumptive claim by undertaking construction could
give undue weight to a contested document, potentially
resulting in injustice to the plaintiff.
8. If the defendant proceeds with construction on
plot No.31 without clear title or established ownership, the
plaintiff, who holds a prima facie valid title, risks suffering
irreparable injury. Any unauthorized construction could
infringe on the plaintiff's right to peaceful possession and
enjoyment of their property. In property disputes,
physical alterations to land can result in irreversible
changes, making it difficult to restore the original state of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7868
the property if the plaintiff ultimately prevails in the case.
Therefore, allowing construction prior to final adjudication
would create a permanent disadvantage for the plaintiff.
The question of whether this rectification deed can transfer
valid title to the defendant over plot No.31 is complex and
will require a detailed examination during a full-fledged
trial.
9. The Trial Court, in its discretionary power,
granted an order for temporary injunction after carefully
evaluating the principles governing temporary injunctions,
prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable
injury. Here, the plaintiff has demonstrated a strong
prima facie case of ownership and possession over plot
No.31, supported by title documents. Additionally, the
Trial Court acknowledged that declining the injunction
could result in irreparable injury to the plaintiff,
particularly if the defendant, without clear title, proceeds
with construction on plot No.31.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7868
10. Under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC), this Court's scope of review is limited to examining
whether the Trial Court's order suffers from gross error or
misappreciation of facts. However, after thorough
examination, this Court finds that the Trial Court's
discretionary exercised in granting injunction is sound and
consistent with the principles governing temporary
injunctions. Thus, this Court sees no reason to interfere
with the Trial Court's order, as the matter requires
comprehensive factual determination, which is suited to
the trial process.
For the reasons stated supra, appeal is dismissed.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28, CT-SW
