Bengaluru Plot Dispute: Karnataka HC Vacates Injunction, Citing Neighbour’s Construction Already Underway Before Suit

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction concerning a 1,200 sq. ft. property, relying on a registered sale deed dated 5 June 2003.

The defendant claimed ownership and possession under a sale deed dated 7 April 2017, relying on a chain of prior conveyances, municipal records, a sanctioned building plan, utility connections and photographs showing construction activity.

The trial court granted the plaintiff a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The parties disputed whether the defendant’s property, originally described as Survey No. 155/4B, corresponded to the plaintiff’s property described as Survey No. 155/4A; the High Court treated that dispute as a matter for trial.

Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, a court considering temporary injunctive relief must assess whether the applicant has shown a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience favours the applicant, and whether refusal of relief would cause irreparable injury.

Relying on Kashi Math Samsthan v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy, (2010) 1 SCC 689, the Court reiterated that a prima facie case is necessary but does not, by itself, warrant an injunction; the other requirements must also be considered.

The Court also addressed the defendant’s application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC to vacate the injunction.

The High Court noted that the defendant had produced photographs and documents relating to construction, including a sanctioned plan and records for electricity and other services, and that the trial court had acknowledged the construction activity.

The dispute over the survey number, measurements and boundaries remained for determination at trial, and the High Court did not resolve the competing title claims.

It held that the trial court had not properly assessed the balance of convenience and potential hardship in light of the defendant’s ongoing construction and investment.

In the Court’s view, continuing the injunction would cause the defendant irreparable hardship; it therefore found the injunction order unsustainable.

It expressly left the merits and all parties’ contentions open, including the disputes concerning site numbers, rectification deeds, measurements and boundaries.