Successors cannot claim property rights through a predecessor whose claim was finally rejected.

The respondents, as plaintiffs in O.S. No. 200/2024, sought a declaration and an interim injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering with their possession of Sy. No. 218, Gangapura Village. They claimed through a registered sale deed dated 14 November 1963 executed by Ramappa in favour of their grandfather, Pillappa.

The petitioner claimed through vendors who had purchased the property from Ramappa’s family under a registered sale deed dated 14 December 2021, and relied on revenue entries in the vendors’ names; the petitioner also pointed to a 1986 re-grant in favour of Ramappa’s wife.

The Trial Court rejected the plaintiffs’ injunction application, but the First Appellate Court allowed their appeal and granted an injunction.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The respondents also relied on O.S. No. 229/1989, a partition suit in which Sy. No. 218 was included and the claim to it was rejected; that finding had attained finality.

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

2. Whether the Trial Court’s reliance on revenue records, despite the registered sale deed and the final outcome of the earlier partition suit, provided a sufficient basis to deny interim injunctive relief

The Court considered the application for interim protection under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the petitioner’s challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution.

It applied the principle that revenue entries, by themselves, do not establish title and cannot alone justify denying an injunction when registered sale deeds are on record.

It also treated the final rejection of the petitioner’s predecessor’s claim to the property in the earlier partition suit as material to the claimed title of the petitioner’s vendors.

No judicial precedents were cited in the order.

The Court noted that the respondents relied on the 1963 registered sale deed and that the petitioner claimed through persons connected to V. R. Suryanarayana, whose claim to Sy. No. 218 had been rejected in O.S. No. 229/1989; that finding had attained finality.

In that context, the petitioner’s vendors could not establish a right to the property merely by relying on revenue entries.

The Court therefore held that the Trial Court’s reliance on those entries was insufficient to deny an injunction and that the First Appellate Court had properly considered the documentary material in granting relief.

The injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondents’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property remained in force.