Son’s Bid To Block Transfers Of Land Claimed Through Mother’s Occupancy Rights Fails For Now: Karnataka HC

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the suit property and possession from the defendants.

He claimed through occupancy rights allegedly granted to his mother and challenged subsequent conveyances.

Pending the suit, he sought an injunction restraining defendants 4–12 from alienating or creating third-party rights over the property.

The trial court dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury.

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

In the appeal, the respondents relied on prior litigation concerning the property, the plaintiff’s earlier unsuccessful suit, and documents evidencing the defendants’ claims and dealings with the property.

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, an applicant for temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour, and likely irreparable injury; failure to establish a prima facie case makes consideration of the other requirements immaterial (*Kashi Math Samsthan v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy*, (2010) 1 SCC 689).

The appellate court ordinarily will not substitute its discretion for that of the trial court unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or contrary to settled principles (*Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd.*, 1990 Supp SCC 727).

A prima facie case requires a bona fide substantial question for adjudication; injunction also requires irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages and a favourable balance of convenience (*Ramakant Ambalal Chokshi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi*, 2024 INSC 913).

The Court also referred to *Mandali Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra*, (2008) 11 SCC 1.

The Court found that the trial judge had considered the prior suits and appeals, the parties’ competing claims, and the documents relied on by the defendants, including registered conveyances and property records.

The plaintiff’s reliance on the alleged occupancy-rights order and succession from his mother did not establish a prima facie case in light of the prior unsuccessful proceedings concerning the same survey number.

Applying the limited appellate standard in *Wander Ltd.*, the Court concluded that the trial court’s assessment was a reasonably available exercise of discretion and disclosed no perversity warranting interference.

It clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the suit and kept all parties’ contentions open.