Over-90 Defendant’s Property Dispute: Karnataka HC Sets Aside Injunction, Orders Status Quo And Suit Disposal Within A Year

The plaintiff brought O.S. No. 2159 of 2025 seeking a permanent injunction concerning Site No. 67 in Sanjay Nagar and obtained an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession.

The defendant appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, asserting that she owned and possessed the disputed property under a registered sale deed dated 10 February 1986 and relying on, among other things, BDA allotment and possession records.

The plaintiff maintained that the parties’ properties were distinct and that their identity should be determined at trial.

During the appeal, the High Court had ordered status quo; both parties asked that possession and enjoyment remain undisturbed and agreed to cooperate in an expedited trial.

The appeal was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, which provides for an appeal from specified orders concerning temporary injunctions.

The application before the trial court had been made under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

The High Court did not apply or discuss any precedent or set out a substantive test for interim injunctions; it expressly left the parties’ rights and contentions open for determination by the trial court.

The parties disputed both ownership and possession, and the plaintiff contended that the properties were distinct, while the defendant relied on her asserted title and possession.

Rather than determine those contested matters on the interlocutory appeal, the High Court relied on the parties’ submissions that status quo should continue and that the suit should proceed expeditiously.

It therefore set aside the trial court’s injunction without expressing any view on the merits, preserving the parties’ contentions for trial.

The parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and enjoyment of their respective portions and not to interfere with one another.

The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within one year, providing both parties a suitable opportunity, and to do so expeditiously in view of the defendant’s age; the High Court expressed no opinion on the merits.