Successors cannot assert title already rejected in a final partition decree.

The respondents, children of Gudiyappa, claimed rights over lands in Sy. Nos. 212 and 218 under a registered sale deed executed by Ramappa in Gudiyappa’s favour on 25 July 1963.

In their 2024 declaration suit, they sought an injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Trial Court rejected the application, but the First Appellate Court allowed it and restrained the petitioner-defendant from interfering with their possession.

The petitioner challenged that order, relying on a 2021 sale deed from Ramappa’s family members and revenue records standing in the vendors’ names.

In an earlier partition suit, O.S. No. 229/1989, the claim of Ramappa’s son, V.R. Suryanarayana, to these lands had been rejected; that finding had attained finality.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in granting an interim injunction in favour of the respondents over Sy. Nos. 212 and 218

2. Whether revenue entries in the petitioner’s vendors’ names were sufficient to defeat the respondents’ prima facie claim based on the 1963 registered sale deed and the outcome of the earlier partition suit

The Court considered the injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which govern interim injunctive relief.

It held that revenue entries, by themselves, do not constitute a valid ground to deny an injunction where registered sale deeds are on record.

It also applied the consequence of the final finding in O.S. No. 229/1989: parties claiming through a claimant whose asserted right to the properties was rejected and that finding attained finality could not assert a derivative right over those properties.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that Gudiyappa’s registered sale deed supported the respondents’ claim and that the petitioner claimed through persons deriving title from V.R. Suryanarayana, whose claim to the same lands had been rejected in the earlier partition suit.

Because that decision had attained finality, the petitioner’s vendors could not assert a right through Suryanarayana.

The Trial Court had relied merely on revenue records, whereas the First Appellate Court considered the registered sale deed and the earlier litigation; the High Court found no basis to interfere with the injunction order.

The writ petition was dismissed.