Revenue entries alone cannot defeat an injunction claim supported by a registered sale deed and final adjudication.

The respondents, claiming through their grandfather Byatappa, sought a declaration concerning Sy. No. 218 and an injunction against the petitioner’s interference with their possession. Their claim relied on a registered sale deed dated 12 May 1964 from Ramappa to Byatappa and on a prior partition suit in which the claim to Sy. No. 218 was rejected.

The petitioner claimed through vendors whose title derived from V. R. Suryanarayana, Ramappa’s son, and relied on a registered sale deed dated 14 December 2021 and revenue entries in the vendors’ names.

The Trial Court rejected the respondents’ application for temporary injunction; the First Appellate Court reversed that decision and granted an injunction. The petitioner challenged the appellate order under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in granting an injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondents’ possession of Sy. No. 218

2. Whether the revenue entries relied on by the petitioner justified refusing an injunction despite the registered 1964 sale deed and the prior partition-suit determination concerning Sy. No. 218

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern applications for temporary injunction.

In considering such relief, revenue entries alone do not constitute a sufficient basis to deny an injunction where a registered sale deed is on record; the Court must consider the documentary material relevant to the claimed right and possession.

A party claiming through a litigant cannot assert a right that was rejected in a prior proceeding and attained finality.

The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction was invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution.

No precedent was cited in the judgment

The High Court noted that the respondents relied on the 1964 registered sale deed in favour of Byatappa and that Sy. No. 218 had been included in the earlier partition suit, where V. R. Suryanarayana’s claim was rejected and the decision attained finality.

Because the petitioner claimed through persons deriving title from Suryanarayana, they could not assert a right inconsistent with that final determination.

The Court further held that the Trial Court had relied merely on revenue records, which could not, by themselves, defeat the respondents’ claim in the face of the registered deed.

It therefore found that the First Appellate Court had properly considered the record in granting the injunction

declined to interfere with the First Appellate Court’s injunction order, and dismissed the writ petition