- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6024 WP No. 101953 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.101953 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GADDEVVA W/O. VEERBHADRAPPA BADIGER, AGE ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O. AMEENGAD, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJESAB S/O. AMEENSAB JANGI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. TATAGAR GALLI AMEENGAD, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. AMEENSAB S/O. NABISAB JANGI, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. TATAGAR GALLI AMEENGAD, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SHRIKANT S/O. BASAPPA PATIL, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AMEENGAD, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. HANAMANTAPPA S/O. SANGANABASAPPA HUGAR, Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.09 15:15:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6024 WP No. 101953 of 2017 AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AMEENGAD, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. SADANAND S/O. BASAPPA KARADI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AMEENGAD, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 6. MALLIKARJUN S/O. BASAPPA KARADI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AMEENGAD, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. 7. SANGAPPA S/O. RAJAPPA JAGGAL, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AMEENGAD, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2025 RESPONDENT-3 IS ABATED; NOTICE TO R4 TO R7 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUNGUND, IN MISC.APPEAL NO.06/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6024 WP No. 101953 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the defendant No.1 assailing the divergent orders of the Courts below on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for brevity). Though the Court of first instance declined to grant injunction, Appellate Court in M.A.No.6/2014 granted injunction and thereby, petitioner is restrained from putting up construction in the disputed property. The said order is under challenge. 2. The records reveal that above order is stayed by this Court vide order dated 02.03.2017. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have filed a suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction against defendants. Plaintiffs have filed the suit asserting title over the suit schedule property based on registered sale deed dated 22.12.1994. The plaintiffs have alleged that the present petitioners own property on the western - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6024 WP No. 101953 of 2017 side of the suit property and they are attempting to encroach the suit schedule property. However, relying on a recital in the sale deed, they are disputing plaintiffs’ title. Defendants are contending that to the eastern side of his property, there is a road and the plaintiffs do not own any property. 4. Though the trial Court declined to grant an order of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, the Appellate Court, upon a re-evaluation of the prima facie material placed on record, has come to a contrary conclusion. The Appellate Court has rightly taken into consideration the foundational principle that the grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is governed by a three-fold test: (i) whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, (ii) whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, and (iii) whether irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction is not granted. Applying these settled principles, the Appellate Court has noted that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6024 WP No. 101953 of 2017 plaintiff No.1 is asserting title over the suit schedule property on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1994. This document, being a registered conveyance, gives rise to a presumption of valid title in favour of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendants dispute the very character of the property, alleging that the land in question forms part of a public road. Given these conflicting assertions, and considering the documentary evidence of title produced by the plaintiffs, the Appellate Court, in exercise of its discretion, has granted the temporary injunction to maintain status quo, thereby preventing any further alteration of the subject matter of the suit. 5. Upon a meticulous examination of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court in M.A.No. 6/2014, this Court finds that the Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the prima facie nature of the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiffs have produced a registered sale deed, which serves as a strong prima facie evidence - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6024 WP No. 101953 of 2017 of their right, title, and interest in the suit schedule property. While the defendants contend that the land is part of a public road, such a contention, raising a mixed question of fact and law, can only be adjudicated through a full-fledged trial involving examination of documents, site inspection, and possibly expert evidence. At the stage of considering an application for temporary injunction, the Court is not expected to finally decide the merits of the case but only to assess whether the plaintiff has made out a credible claim warranting preservation of the status quo. In that light, the Appellate Court’s interference with the trial Court’s order declining injunction appears to be based on sound legal reasoning. 6. This Court, after scrutinizing the material on record, is of the considered view that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the respondents–plaintiffs. Where plaintiffs have produced a registered document evidencing their title, and the very identity or character of the suit property is in dispute, allowing the defendants to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6024 WP No. 101953 of 2017 alter the nature of the property, including by raising construction or undertaking any development activities, may result in irreversible consequences and may defeat the very purpose of the suit. It is a well-settled principle of law that where there is a risk of irreparable harm or injury particularly one that cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money, the Court is justified in granting a temporary injunction to preserve the subject matter of the litigation. Equity, in such circumstances, demands that the parties maintain status quo so that the final adjudication is meaningful and not rendered infructuous. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Appellate Court, which appears to have been made in accordance with settled principles governing interim relief. 7. However, this Court has taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the original suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution but has since been restored and is now - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6024 WP No. 101953 of 2017 actively contested by both parties. In light of this development, and considering the equitable nature of the relief granted, this Court is of the opinion that appropriate directions are necessary to ensure expeditious disposal of the suit. While the plaintiffs are entitled to enjoy the protection of interim relief, they cannot take undue advantage of such an order to indefinitely delay the progress of the suit. An interim injunction is granted to preserve the rights of parties pending adjudication, not as a means to obstruct or protract the final resolution of the dispute. Accordingly, it is directed that the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit on merits at the earliest. 8. For the reason stated supra, this Court passes the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is dismissed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6024 WP No. 101953 of 2017 ii) However, trial Court is directed to expedite and decide the matter at the earliest, since defendants are injuncted from putting up construction. iii) All the contentions of parties are kept. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11