Karnataka HC Lifts Injunction Against Buyers Who Purchased Disputed Land During Suit, Requiring Demolition If Plaintiff Wins And Seeks It

The plaintiff initially brought a suit for permanent injunction and obtained a temporary injunction against the original defendants.

During the suit, those defendants sold part of the suit property to defendant Nos. 5–8, who were later impleaded.

The plaintiff amended the plaint to seek a declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, as well as other reliefs

The purchasers applied under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC to vacate the injunction; the trial court rejected their application.

They appealed, contending that they were in possession under a registered sale deed and had obtained permissions and commenced construction

The High Court considered the appeal against the rejection of that application

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, governing temporary injunctions, and Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, under which an injunction may be discharged, varied, or set aside; it also referred to Section 151 CPC

In determining whether interim relief was justified, the court must consider a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, while assessing the comparative hardship to the parties

The Court also referred to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act in connection with pendente lite transfers, but left the parties’ substantive rights and the effect of the sale for trial

No precedent was cited.

The plaintiff’s amended claim for recovery of possession indicated that he was not in possession, while the purchasers were in possession and had proceeded with construction after obtaining a sanctioned plan and necessary permissions

The trial court had not adequately considered those circumstances or the balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and comparative hardship when rejecting the purchasers’ application

The purchasers’ title and the plaintiff’s claim remained matters for trial; accordingly, the Court did not decide their merits

It considered that the plaintiff’s interests could be protected by requiring the purchasers to claim no equity from construction and, if the plaintiff succeeded and so required, to demolish the structure at their own cost

The temporary injunction granted on the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also set aside

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits, directed that the purchasers claim no equity from any construction and, if the plaintiff succeeded and required it, demolish the structure at their own cost; it also directed the trial court to endeavour to dispose of the suit within one year