Karnataka HC Temporarily Lets Owner Continue House Construction Amid Defendants’ 5-Foot Passage Claim

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction concerning a property purchased under a registered sale deed dated 20 December 2023.

After demolishing an existing house and obtaining a sanctioned plan, he began constructing a G+2 building.

The defendants opposed his application for temporary injunction, claiming rights over a five-foot passage between the properties.

The trial Court found a prima facie case but dismissed the application because it considered the balance of convenience and irreparable injury to favour the defendants.

The plaintiff appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The Court considered the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC, and the appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

Temporary injunctive relief requires consideration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable injury.

In a bare-injunction suit, the interim application should be assessed in light of the plaintiff’s asserted possession and supporting documents, rather than decided as though it were a suit for declaration of title.

The Court also treated registered title documents, together with possession and municipal records, as supporting the plaintiff’s prima facie case.

The plaintiff’s registered sale deed, possession, municipal and revenue records, sanctioned plan, electricity connection, and ongoing construction supported his prima facie case.

The Court held that the trial Court, having accepted that a prima facie case existed, should also have weighed the practical consequences of allowing construction to be interrupted: the plaintiff had already erected pillars and invested funds, including through a bank loan.

The defendants’ asserted rights over the five-foot passage remained matters for trial; the record disclosed no counterclaim concerning the suit property, and the trial Court was not to determine title at the interim stage.

The defendants could pursue their claim through an appropriate application, to be considered in accordance with law.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 30 July 2026, and allowed the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The defendants were restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s construction on the suit schedule property.

The defendants remained at liberty to make an appropriate application asserting ownership over the five-foot passage, and the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the suit.