Karnataka HC Denies Woman’s Temporary Injunction Bid Over Gift-Deed Claim, Citing Earlier Sale Deed By Her And Husband

Sunandamma sued for a permanent injunction concerning property at Geddalahalli, claiming through a 1972 Panchayat partition and a 2004 registered gift deed from her husband, Yellappa.

Aswath Reddy opposed the injunction, relying on a 1995 registered sale deed executed by Yellappa and Sunandamma in favour of Shaheen Fathima, followed by registered transfers in 2013 and 2015 to Reddy’s wife and her mother.

The trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo on Sunandamma’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Both parties appealed that order.

The judgment’s appeal description refers to O.S. No. 1267/2005, while its body identifies the suit as O.S. No. 1267/2025.

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court considering temporary injunction must assess whether the applicant has established a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience favours the applicant, and whether refusal would cause irreparable injury or hardship.

The court relied on Kashi Math Samsthan v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy, (2010) 1 SCC 689, for the proposition that where no prima facie case is made out, the court need not proceed to consider the other two requirements.

The court also treated the registered sale deeds relied on by the defendant as having presumptive value.

The High Court found that the defendant had produced registered sale deeds tracing the property from Yellappa and Sunandamma to Shaheen Fathima and then to the defendant’s wife and her mother.

It held that the trial court had not addressed those documents in its reasoning.

Given that chain of registered transfers, the court concluded that Sunandamma had not established a prima facie case for an injunction.

It further considered that the balance of convenience did not favour her and that withholding an injunction would not cause her irreparable injury, whereas granting one could prejudice the defendant’s wife, whom the court identified as the title holder.

The court expressly left the parties’ substantive claims open.

It set aside the trial court’s status quo order and dismissed Sunandamma’s application for temporary injunction.

It clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and left all contentions open.