Dharwad HC Upholds Interim Restraint On Land Buyers, Citing Ex-Parte Decree That Their 2008 Deed Was Not Binding On Owner

The petitioners, defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 390/2024, claimed title and possession under a registered sale deed dated 19 June 2008.

The plaintiffs claimed the same property under a 2024 purchase and alleged that the 2008 deed was obtained through impersonation by a person known as Fakkirappa Dalawai @ Jogi

The Trial Court granted the plaintiffs an interim injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their possession; the appellate court affirmed that order

The petitioners challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227, relying on their sale deed and seeking to set aside an ex parte decree in an earlier suit, O.S. No. 112/2019, through a pending miscellaneous petition

In O.S. No. 112/2019, the 2008 sale deed had been held not binding on the original owner

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the challenged interim injunction was granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The Court considered whether the subordinate courts’ orders disclosed an illegality or irregularity warranting its supervisory interference; it cited no precedent or further legal test

The competing claims turned on whether Fakkirappa Dalawai and Fakkirappa Dalawai @ Jogi were the same person, a question requiring determination in the suit

However, the courts below had also considered the judgment in O.S. No. 112/2019, which held that the petitioners’ 2008 sale deed was not binding on the original owner

In those circumstances, the High Court found no irregularity or illegality warranting interference, without finally deciding the parties’ competing title claims

It clarified that, if the petitioners obtained relief in their pending proceeding to set aside the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 112/2019, they could bring that changed circumstance to the Trial Court’s attention and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law