Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rangamma vs Sri Sadashivaiah on 8 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 18.06.2025
Pronounced on : 08.07.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.2834 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.36509 OF 2024 (GM - CPC)
WRIT PETITION No.2214 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)
WRIT PETITION No.4265 OF 2025 (GM - CPC)
IN WRIT PETITION No.2834 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
D/O LATE HANUMAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA
2. SRI LAKSHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA
PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT ALLAMANAPALYA VILLAGE,
AJJANAHALLI DAKAL, CHOCHANNAKUPPE POST,
TAVARAKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
2
3. SRI R. LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O LATE RANGANARAYANAPPA,
RESIDING AT SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE,
K. GOLLAHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 074.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LALITHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.4, DODDIPALYA,
KUMBLAGODU GOLLAHALLI POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 074.
2. SMT. JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH
3. SRI NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH,
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT
KULLEGOWDANAPALYA, K. GOLLAHALLI POST,
KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 074.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
OS NO.1255/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU AND IN MA
NO.24/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, ISSUE
NOTICES TO THE RESPONDENTS; QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
04.11.2024 MADE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.24/2024 FILED
UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) READ WITH 151 OF THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU,
PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 'P' TO THE WRIT PETITION
AND DISMISS THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.22/2024
PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - 'M'.
IN WRIT PETITION No.36509 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
D/O LATE HANUMAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA
2. SRI LAKSHMAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA
PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING
AT ALLAMANAPALYA VILLAGE
AJJANAHALLI DAKAL
CHOCHANNAKUPPE POST
TAVARAKERE HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 085.
3. SRI R.LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O LATE RANGANARAYANAPPA
4
RESIDING AT SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE
K.GOLLAHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 074.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI C.CHIKKASIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ SIDDAPPA
RESIDING AT NO.207
MATHRUSHREE NILAYA
NEW POST OFFICE ROAD
KUMBALAGODU
BENGALURU - 560 074.
2. SMT.JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
W/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH.
3. SRI NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE RISIDING AT
KULLEGOWDANAPALYA, K.GOLLAHALLI POST
KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 074.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
5
ORDER DATED 04.11.2024 MADE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
NO.21/2024 FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) READ WITH 151
OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
AT BENGALURU, PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 'Q' TO
THE WRIT PETITION AND DISMISS THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS
APPEAL NO. 21/2024.
IN WRIT PETITION No.2214 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
D/O LATE HANUMAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA,
2. SRI. LAKSHMAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA,
PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT ALLAMANAPALYA VILLAGE,
AJJANAHALLI DAKAL, CHOCHANNAKUPPE POST,
TAVARAKERE HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
3. SRI R. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O LATE RANGANARAYANAPPA,
RESIDING AT SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE,
K. GOLLAHALLI POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 074.
... PETITIONERS
6
(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI G.V.NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATANARAYANA,
RESIDING AT GONIPURA VILLAGE,
K. GOLLAHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 074.
2. SMT. JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH.
3. SRI NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT
KULLEGOWDANAPALYA, K. GOLLAHALLI POST,
KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 074.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE C/R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 04.11.2024 MADE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.22/2024
FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) READ WITH 151 OF THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU,
PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-'Q' TO THE WRIT
7
PETITION AND DISMISS THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
NO.22/2024.
IN WRIT PETITION No.4265 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RANGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
D/O LATE HANUMAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA,
2. SRI LAKSHMAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA,
PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT ALLAMANAPALYA VILLAGE,
AJJANAHALLI DAKAL, CHOCHANNAKUPPE POST,
TAVARAKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
3. SRI R. LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O LATE RANGANARAYANAPPA,
RESIDING AT SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE,
K. GOLLAHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 074.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDAY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SADASHIVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
8
S/O LATE JANARDHANAIAH,
RESIDING AT KAMPINAYANAPALYA VILLAGE,
DODDAKUNTANAHALLI DAKALE, BYRUNMANGALA POST,
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.
2. SMT. JAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH,
3. SRI NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH,
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT
KULLEGOWDANAPALYA, K. GOLLAHALLI POST,
KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
BENGALURU - 560 074.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 04.11.2024 MADE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
NO.23/2024 FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) READ WITH 151
OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
AT BENGALURU, PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-'P' TO
THE WRIT PETITION AND DISMISS THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS
APPEAL NO.23/2024.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
9
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Batch of these petitions call in question an order dated
04-11-2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in M.A.Nos.24 of 2024, 21 of
2024, 22 of 2024 and 23 of 2024 respectively, by which the order
dated 07-03-2024 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on I.A.No.I filed under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, in O.S.No.1255 of 2023, 1258 of 2023,
1256 of 2023 and 1257 of 2023 respectively, refusing to grant
temporary injunction, comes to be granted.
2. Heard Sri C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Sri M.B.Chandachooda, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts, in brief, are as follows: -
Since the contentions urged in all the petitions are same,
except the change in original suit numbers and miscellaneous
10
appeal numbers, for understanding, the facts as narrated in
W.P.No.2384 of 2025 are narrated:
The petitioners 1 and 2, in the case at hand, are said to be
daughters and the 3rd petitioner is said to be the son-in-law of one
late Hanumaiah and his wife late Rangamma. The 1st
respondent/plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.1255 of 2023 against
the petitioners and other respondents/defendants before the civil
Court seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants or any one interfering with her peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The 2nd petitioner is said
to have filed a detailed written statement and opposed the claim of
the plaintiff in O.S.No.1255 of 2023 and filed a memo for treating
the written statement as objections to the interim application filed
by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The trial
Court answering the aforesaid application under Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 CPC, rejected the application filed by the plaintiff and
declined to grant any injunction in terms of its order dated
07-03-2024. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the refusal to favour
an order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, preferred an appeal before
11
the 1st Appellate Court in M.A.No.24 of 2024. The 1st Appellate
Court grants an interim order of injunction, by upturning the order
passed by the trial Court. It is this order that is called in question
by the petitioners/defendants 3 to 5 in O.S.No.1255 of 2023.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners' Sri C. Shankar
Reddy vehemently submits that the order of the 1st Appellate Court
is without affording appropriate opportunity to the petitioners. The
1st Appellate Court ignores that in a portion of the suit schedule
property there is a family burial ground which is brought to the
notice of the Court by producing photographs. The remaining
portion is being cultivated by the family of defendants 3 and
4/petitioners. They are in joint possession and enjoyment of the
property. The 1st petitioner and another have challenged RTC
entries that went against them in Revision Petition No.118 of 2024
before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner
refused to grant an interim order of stay and the 1st petitioner
aggrieved thereby has preferred Writ Petition No.11630 of 2024
which is pending, with no stay operating in favour of the
petitioners. The learned counsel would thus contend that the
12
petitioners' rights be protected, as protected by the trial Court and
the order of the 1st Appellate Tribunal be set aside or status quo
qua the suit schedule property be maintained by parties till the
disposal of the suit.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri M.B.Chandrachooda
would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the
petitioners have no right over the suit schedule property and 1st
respondent/plaintiff is not using any portion of the property of the
petitioners and other defendants. The trial Court had erred in
refusing to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The 1st
Appellate Court has now, on looking into entire material, has
granted injunction against these petitioners. He would, therefore,
contend that there nothing wrong in the order, as the suit is
pending for adjudication.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
13
7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. The
suits are pending for adjudication. The interim protection that is
sought in the suits, which is refused to be granted by the trial Court
has been granted by the 1st Appellate Court. For better
understanding of the submissions, it is appropriate to notice the
reasons for rejection of the prayer for temporary injunction by the
trial Court in O.S.No.1255 of 2023. They read as follows:
".... .... ....
15. I have carefully gone through the documents
produced by the plaintiff. On perusal of the sale deed dated
23-08-2008, it reveals that one C.Nagaraju, Nagarathna,
Jayamma, P.C. Nagarathna and Manjula have executed the said
sale deed in favour of one Krishnappa who is the husband of the
plaintiff in respect of property bearing Sy.No.28/33 measuring
32 guntas out of 1 acre 8 guntas and Sy.No.29/1 measuring 1
acre 8 guntas i.e., the suit schedule A and B properties for
valuable sale consideration of ₹60,00,000/-. On perusal of MR.
No.30/2008-09, it reveals that the katha of the property
Sy.No.28/33 measuring 32 guntas and Sy.No.29/1 measuring 1
acre 08 guntas were transferred in the name of Krishnappa who
is the husband of the Plaintiff. The RTC standing in the name of
the husband of the plaintiff. Subsequently on 27-04-2020, the
said Krishnappa died. Thereafter the katha of the suit schedule
A and B properties were transferred in the name of the plaintiff.
In this respect, the RTC extracts also standing in the name of
the plaintiff. The RTC extracts reveals that the plaintiff has been
in possession over the suit schedule A and B properties under
the pavathi katha. On perusal of the photographs, it appears
that the plaintiff has been in possession over the suit schedule
properties.
... ... ...
14
19. On careful perusal of the documents produced by
both the parties, it is forthcoming that the husband of the
plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from defendant
No.1 and 2 and others under the registered sale deed dated 23-
08-2008 for the valuable sale consideration. Admittedly one
Rangamma and Puttarangamma have filed suit for partition and
separate possession before the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. On perusal of the
orders passed by the Hon'ble Court, it reveals that already the
Hon'ble Appellate Court has granted status quo order in respect
of the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, the husband of the
plaintiff who is the purchaser of the suit schedule property is
also a party in the said suit. Therefore, if any order passed by
this Court in respect of the suit schedule properties the same is
contrary/conflict of interest to the order of the Hon'ble Principal
Senior Civil Judge. The plaintiff is also a party to the said suit as
L.Rs of said late Krishnappa. Therefore, the plaintiff ought to
have filed present application before the Hon'ble Principal Senior
Civil Judge Court to get the appropriate relief. Therefore, the
plaintiff is at liberty to file present application before that Court
to get appropriate relief. At this stage, in view of the pending of
suit for partition and order of status quo, this Court cannot pass
any order. Therefore, the plaintiff has not made out prima facie
case in her favour to grant temporary injunction. Accordingly,
this court answered Point No.1 in the Negative."
This is called in question by the 1st respondent/plaintiff before the
1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court on a re-look at the
entire matter now holds that balance of convenience would be in
favour of the plaintiff for grant temporary injunction. The reasons
so rendered by the 1st Appellate Court in M.A.No.24 of 2024 are as
follows:
".... .... ....
15
10. The defendants herein dispute the plaintiff's title and
possession over the suit schedule property and submitted that
O.S.1740 of 2008 is pending before the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. The trial Court after considering
the material placed on record has arrived to a conclusion that
plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property but in the
said order, the possession was not protected by the trial Court
only on the ground that O.S.1740 of 2008 is pending before the
Principal Senior Civil Judge which was filed by the family
members of defendants herein for the relief of partition and
separate possession. In the said suit, the vacation court had
granted an ad interim order of temporary injunction in respect
of suit schedule property. In that suit temporary injunction was
with respect to alienation of the suit schedule property in favour
of third parties and also with respect to restraining the
defendants from damaging the stones tombs on the schedule
Item No.6, 7 and 8 of properties therein in any manner pending
disposal of the suit. The trial Court considering the status quo
order granted by the vacation court in O.S.1740 of 2008 has
restrained itself from granting the temporary injunction in
favour of plaintiff/appellant and also observed that the interim
order is still in force and if an interim order of protection is
granted to the plaintiff, the same would be misused by the
plaintiff thereby would trespass into the suit schedule property
and dispossess the defendants from the suit schedule property.
11. It is important to note that though O.S.No.1740 of
2008 is pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Bangalore Rural District with respect to partition and separate
possession, the present suit is instituted by the plaintiff herein is
for the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff herein
aggrieved by the interference made by the defendants has
approached this Court to protect his possession over the suit
schedule property. Since the sale deed and revenue records
prima facie reveal that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit
schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 23-08-2008 and
as recital makes it clear that the vendors of plaintiff had handed
over the possession of the suit schedule property to the
appellant's husband, this Court infers that plaintiff is in
possession of the suit schedule property.
12. However, it is pertinent to note that an order of
status quo was granted in O.S.1740 of 2008 only with respect to
16
alienation and demolition of stones in the schedule item No.6, 7
and 8 of the properties in that suit. Since the plaintiff is in
possession by virtue of sale deed, any order passed by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge in O.S.1740 of 2008 does not come
in the way to protect the possession of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property. The rights of the parties are yet to be
adjudicated in O.S.1740 of 2008 and until then the plaintiff's
possession over the schedule property has to be protected in
the instant suit.
13. Another important observation that is made by the
trial Court is that plaintiff ought to have filed the present
application before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru
Rural District to get appropriate relief. It is important to note
that the plaintiff/appellant herein is not a party to the suit in
O.S.1740 of 2008 and moreover, if the plaintiff is arrayed as
defendant in the said suit, an application for temporary
injunction by the plaintiff in the stand as defendant cannot
sustain. Hence, the plaintiff has rightly filed the present suit for
permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering
with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. Till outcome of the judgment and decree in
O.S. 1740 of 2008, plaintiff's possession, which he has acquired
by virtue of sale deed dated 21-03-2011 has to be protected.
Since the plaintiff herein is not a party to the suit in O.S.1740 of
2008, which is evident from the plaint copy furnished by the
appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that
defendants had conveyed possession of the suit schedule
property to the plaintiff by virtue of sale deed and since the suit
schedule property is an agricultural property and as the plaintiff
has to carry out the agricultural activity in the schedule
property, the rights of the plaintiff has to be protected until
adjudication of the claim in the suit before the trial Court.
Therefore, the plaintiff has made out prima facie case for grant
of temporary injunction. Since the possession is handed over by
the defendants herein by virtue of the sale deed, the balance of
convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff. If an order of
temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiff/ appellant will
be put to irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the trial court
though has rightly observed the possession of the plaintiff over
the suit schedule property has declined to defend the same in
view of the pendency and interim order in O.S.1740 of 2008.
Hence, in view of the error apparent in the order passed by the
17
trial Court, the same has to be set aside and accordingly, I
answer the above points in the affirmative.
14. Point No.3: For the reasons discussed supra, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant/ plaintiff
U/Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC is allowed.
Hereby set aside the Order dated:07-03-2024 passed by
the II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru
in O.S.1255 of 2023 on I.A.I.
Consequently, defendants/respondents, his assignees or
anybody claiming under them are hereby by an order of
temporary injunction restrained from interfering with the
appellant/plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit schedule
property, pending disposal of the suit."
The concerned Court holds that the petitioners/defendants dispute
the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and original
suit in O.S.No.1740 of 2008 in that regard is pending before the
concerned Court. The trial Court, after considering the material on
record, holds that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule
property, but possession was not protected only on the ground that
O.S.No.1740 of 2008 is pending, which is filed by the family
members of the present defendants for partition and separate
possession. The 1st Appellate Court rightly concludes that the said
suit is yet to reach its logical conclusion. The 1st Appellate Court
further observes that the sale deed and revenue records prima facie
reveal that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule
property in terms of the sale deed dated 23-08-2008 and as such,
the trial Court ought to have granted temporary injunction. On all
these factors, the 1st Appellate Court holds that balance of
convenience is in favour of grant of temporary injunction in favour
of the plaintiff.
8. The order passed by the 1st Appellate Court is in the nature
of protecting rights of the plaintiff, until adjudication of the claim in
the suits, as the suit schedule property is the subject matter of
sale deeds and since then the plaintiff is in possession of the suit
schedule property. Therefore, on a prima facie view, to protect the
rights of the plaintiff, the 1st Appellate Court has passed an order of
grant of temporary injunction. No fault can be found with the order
passed by the 1st Appellate Court, which is based on sound and
cogent reasons. This Court is not deciding the suit. It is only
deciding rejection of the application and acceptance of the
application, by the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court
respectively. The scope of interference is limited to the order being
perverse, for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. I do not find any such perversity in the order
warranting interference.
9. Petitions lacking in merit, stand rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
