- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1215 WP No. 201488 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 201488 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PUNYA @ MUNNA S/O. BASHU NAYAK CHAVAN AGE 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHANDRAPUR TANDA, TQ. SEDAM DIST. KALABURAGI …PETITIONER (BY SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI AND SRI. MANJUNATH GINNI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. NARSING S/O. DEVJI NAYAK, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TUMMALKUNTA TANDA MADNA, TQ. SEDAM, DIST KALABURAGI - 585101 2. RAGHU S/O. NARSING NAYAK AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TUMMALKUNTE TANDA MADNA, TQ. SEDAM DIST, KALABURAGI 585101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.P.AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1215 WP No. 201488 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.02.2022 PASSED IN M.A NO.1/2021 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SEDAM AT ANNEXURE - E REVERSING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT ON I.A. NO.1/2020 IN O.S. NO.11/2020 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SEDAM AND TO ALLOW I.A NO.1/2020 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The plaintiff in O.S.No.11/2020 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sedam (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) is before this Court challenging an order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sedam (henceforth referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short) in Misc.A.No.1/2021 by which, it allowed the appeal and set aside the order of interim injunction granted by the Trial Court. 2. (i) The suit in O.S.No.11/2020 was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of an open space bearing - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1215 WP No. 201488 of 2022 Panchayat No.1-34 measuring 150 feet x 70 + 50 feet (East- West towards North 70 feet, East-West towards South 50 feet and North-South 150 feet with toilet room). The plaintiff claimed that he was the owner of the suit property and that the defendants did not have any right, title and interest thereon. He claimed that he was in possession of the suit property since the year 1991 and that the concerned panchayat had surveyed the Chandapur Tanda and found that the plaintiff was in possession and hence, his name was entered in the panchayat records in the year 2003. The plaintiff obtained permission to construct a compound wall to enclose the suit property in the year 2003 and covered it by a compound and constructed a toilet over the suit property. He claimed that he was paying the property tax to the concerned panchayat. He contended that the property lying on the eastern side of the suit property was bearing No.94 and belonged to his father and that the plaintiff was using the suit property to tether cattle and store hay and farm equipment. He contended that defendant No.1 and 2 had constructed a temple named Sri Venkateshwara on the western side of the suit property without obtaining any permission from the panchayat and were trying to grab the suit - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1215 WP No. 201488 of 2022 property. The plaintiff therefore sought for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession. An application for interim injunction was also filed to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession. (ii) The suit was contested by the defendants who claimed that the suit property belonged to Sri. Venkateshwara Swamy Temple and that the plaintiff was not concerned with the suit property in any manner whatsoever. They also contended that suit property lay within Chandapur panchayat while property Sri Venkateshwara Temple lay within Madna panchayat and situated on the Government land bearing Sy.No.429 of Madna village . (iii) The Trial Court after considering the contentions urged in the plaint, as well as application and the written statement held that the plaintiff had produced a plan sanctioned by the panchayat permitting him to put up construction in the suit property and held that the plaintiff had produced property extract from the year 2003 - 2004 where his name was found. It also held that the plaintiff had produced tax paid receipts for the year 2019-2020. It also noticed a plan - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1215 WP No. 201488 of 2022 produced of the proposed construction which was sanctioned by the panchayat and held that the document produced by the plaintiff was sufficient to hold that he was in possession of the suit property and thus granted an order of interim injunction. (iv). Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants filed M.A.No.1/2021 contending inter alia that the plaintiff did not produce any documents to establish that he was the owner of the suit property and that he was in possession of the suit property from the year 1991. The Appellate Court after perusing the records, held that the plaintiff had not produced any documents to establish his title over the suit property, though, he claimed that he was the owner of the suit property. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiff did not produce any documents to establish the existence of the suit property and that he had obtained any permission for putting up construction over the suit property. The Appellate Court therefore, set aside the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court by allowing the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff is before this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1215 WP No. 201488 of 2022 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendants did not have any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property, while the plaintiff had some documents to establish that he has some interest in the suit property and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in granting an order of interim injunction. She contends that the First Appellate Court proceeded on the assumption that the plaintiff did not produce any documents, without really considering the question whether the documents produced by the plaintiff was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the suit was for injunction based on title and therefore, the plaintiff was bound to produce some documents to establish that he was the owner of the suit property. He contends that the Trial Court had proceeded to grant an order of injunction based on some revenue documents, for which there was no basis. Hence, he contends that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is just and proper. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1215 WP No. 201488 of 2022 6. It is now well settled that grant of an order of injunction is a discretionary remedy and Courts would grant such orders only to maintain status-quo of the property, so that if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, he should get the benefits of the decree. Therefore, in order to grant an order of injunction, the Court is bound to be first satisfied that there is a prima facie case made out by the plaintiff for grant of injunction and that any order refusing to grant injunction would visit the plaintiff with irreparable consequences. 7. In the case on hand, the plaintiff claimed that he was the owner of the suit property and to substantiate the said fact, he placed on record few panchayat records to demonstrate that his name was found in the records of the panchayat. He also placed on record few tax paid receipts and the permission purportedly granted by the panchayat to construct compound wall. These documents at any rate did not confer title upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff was bound to produce some documents to establish his title to claim that the defendants were interfering with his lawful possession. Since, the plaintiff has failed to do so, the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the order passed by the Trial Court granting injunction. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1215 WP No. 201488 of 2022 8. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the Appellate Court warranting interference. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ/NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48