- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11358 MFA No. 7457 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7457 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: SRI VENKATESH REDDY S/O. LATE SRI. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 225, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, HONGASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 068 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUBRAHMANYA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GIRIJAMMA, W/O. LATE. SRI. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS RESPONDENTS 2-8 DEATH NOTED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2024 AND D2 TO D8 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD ARE TREATED AS LRS OF THE DECEASED 1 DEFENDANT) SMT. VARALAKSHMAMMA @ G.R. VARALAKSHMI D/O LATE SRI. RAMAIAH, W/O SRI. G.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. RESIDING AT NO. 71, 1ST FLOOR, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, OPPO PRAGATHINAGAR, CHIKKA THOGURU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH, ELECTRONIC CITY, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11358 MFA No. 7457 of 2024 BENGALURU -560100. 2. SRI. R. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE SRI. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 3. SMT. PUSHPA K W/O LATE SRI. R. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SRI. AMARNARAYANA S/O LATE SRI.R. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 5. SRI. RAMESH.K. S/O LATE SRI.R. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 6. SRI. BHARATH K S/O LATE SRI. R. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 TO 7 RESIDING AT NO. 67/1, KURUBARA BEEDHI, GATTIHALLI, HUSKUR, BENGALURU -560099. 7. SMT. RENUKAMMA D/O LATE SRI. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 51, GATTAHALLI, VILLAGE, HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU -560099. 8. M/S PIONEER PROJECT A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 48, 2ND FLOOR, i-STAGE BUILDING , 100 FEET ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU -560034. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11358 MFA No. 7457 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. NARENDRA BALAJI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE M.R. YOGISHWAR REDDY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8 NOTICE TO R1 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 05.03.2025) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 817/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, REJECTING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order dated 14.10.2024 passed on IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in OS.No.817/2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, whereby the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed. 2. The admitted facts and the plaint averments are that defendant Nos.1 to 8 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. An agreement of Sale is executed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 in favour of the plaintiff on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11358 MFA No. 7457 of 2024 05/15.11.2013. The total sale consideration mentioned in the agreement of sale is Rs.1,65,00,000/-. It is contended by the plaintiff that he has paid part sale consideration to the defendants. When this being the fact, defendant Nos.1 to 8 have sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.9 through registered Sale Deed dated 21.2.2023 and thereafter, the legal heirs of one late Ramaiah have also executed Confirmation Deed in favour of defendant No.9 on 3.4.2023. Therefore, defendant No.9 is in possession over the suit property. 3. The Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff on the reason that defendant No.9 is the purchaser of the suit property through registered Sale Deed and has developed the property by forming sites and he has already alienated some of the sites in favour of various purchasers and the purchasers are in possession over the suit property. Under the circumstances, if defendant Nos.1 to 9 are restrained from alienating the suit property, then the purchasers including defendant No.9 will be put to hardship than the plaintiff. Therefore, on this reason, dismissed the application filed for Temporary Injunction. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11358 MFA No. 7457 of 2024 4. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not owner of the suit schedule property, but he is merely an agreement holder. As per the plaintiff, he has paid Rs.48,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 to 8. The agreement of sale is dated 05/15.11.2013, but the suit is filed in the year 2024. There is a delay of 11 years in filing the suit from the date of execution of the agreement of sale. It is stated that there was litigation pending between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 and therefore, the plaintiff could not get execution of the Sale Deed. This aspect is a matter for trial during the pendency of the suit. More over, defendant No.9 has become the owner of the suit property by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated 21.2.2023 and by Confirmation Deed dated 3.4.2023. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not in possession, but merely an agreement holder. Defendant No.9 contended that he has developed the suit schedule land, layout is also formed and sites have been purchased by some purchasers. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court is correct in observing that if an order restraining alienation is granted, then that would cause more hardship to defendant Nos.1 to 9 than the plaintiff. Therefore, the order of rejection of the application for Temporary Injunction passed by the Trial - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11358 MFA No. 7457 of 2024 Court is justified. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30