Karnataka HC Upholds Interim Injunction Letting 75-Year-Old Mother Harvest Sugarcane From Land Kept For Her Maintenance, Despite Sons’ Obstruction

The plaintiff, Annapurna, sued for declaration and injunction concerning the suit property and sought temporary relief restraining defendants 1 and 2 from obstructing her in harvesting sugarcane and supplying it to a factory.

The defendants disputed her possession and cultivation and asserted that defendant 1 owned and possessed the relevant portion of the property

The Trial Court rejected the injunction application.

On appeal, the First Appellate Court allowed the plaintiff’s Section 5 Limitation Act application, set aside the Trial Court’s order, and granted the temporary injunction.

Defendants 1 and 2 challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern temporary injunctions; the court considers whether the applicant has shown a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury, with the parties’ conduct also relevant.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits an appeal to be admitted after the prescribed period where sufficient cause for delay is shown; the First Appellate Court allowed the application under that provision.

Article 227 of the Constitution provides supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, which the High Court exercised to assess whether the challenged appellate order contained an infirmity warranting intervention.

The High Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s reliance on the mutation extract, which indicated that the suit property had been retained for the plaintiff’s maintenance during her lifetime, and which the defendants had not challenged.

The plaintiff had also produced sugarcane-supply records and bills supporting her case that she had supplied produce to the factory through 2022; the defendants had not produced documents showing that they cultivated sugarcane on the suit property.

The Court considered the plaintiff’s age and the evidence of her prior use of the property, and found that the Trial Court had failed to account for relevant material.

It therefore found no infirmity in the appellate order sufficient to justify supervisory interference.

It dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order dated 5 December 2023 in M.A. No. 5/2023.

The Trial Court was requested to expedite the suit, and both parties were directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.