Karnataka HC Upholds Property Injunction Refusal After Plaintiff Files Supporting Title Documents Only On Appeal

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership of the suit property, vacant possession, and other reliefs.

She sought temporary injunctions restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering the property and from changing its nature.

The trial court dismissed both applications, finding no prima facie case.

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

She relied on title documents produced with a memo in the appeal, although those documents had not been placed before the trial court.

An earlier injunction application between the same parties concerning the same property had also been dismissed; the appeal from that order was withdrawn.

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, an applicant seeking temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour, and the likelihood of irreparable injury if relief is refused.

The court relied on Kashi Math Samsthan v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy, which states that where a prima facie case is not established, consideration of balance of convenience and irreparable injury is not material.

Under Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., an appellate court should not interfere with the trial court’s exercise of discretion merely because it might have reached a different view.

The appeal was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The plaintiff’s suit sought vacant possession, indicating that she was not in possession of the property.

The trial court had not been provided with the title documents later produced in the appeal, and the plaintiff had therefore not established a prima facie case on the material before that court.

The High Court also noted the dismissal of the earlier injunction application between the same parties concerning the same property and the withdrawal of the appeal against that order.

Applying the principles in Kashi Math and Wander Ltd., the Court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s discretionary assessment.

It expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit.