- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7824 MFA No. 7930 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7930 OF 2024 (CPC-) BETWEEN: SRI. B. SRINIVAS S/O LATE BHEEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT BHALEPURA VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. J C KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 3. SRI. C. SRIRAM S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7824 MFA No. 7930 of 2024 R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 5. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 6. SRI. RAVI S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.S. RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-6) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:08.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 IN O.S.NO.733/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7824 MFA No. 7930 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC for setting aside the order of the Trial Court in O.S.No.733/2024 dated 08.11.2024 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli and to grant interim order injunction not to create 3rd party interest over the suit schedule property passed. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. 3. The appellant was plaintiff and the respondents were defendant before the Trial Court. The status of the parties before the Trial Court are retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.1/P49 measuring 2 acres - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7824 MFA No. 7930 of 2024 of land situated at Bommanahalli Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural district. It is alleged that the agreement of sale was entered between the plaintiff and defendants on 21.03.2011 for purchasing the schedule property for Rs.22,50,000/- and paid only Rs.6,50,000/- as advance sale consideration and subsequently the appellant also paid Rs.9,00,000/- vide 3 to 4 installments to the respondents/defendants totally Rs.15,50,000/- was paid. The land was granted land where the defendants were required to obtain the permission for alienating the property. Under the agreement of sale, the defendants authorised the appellant to approach the Government for obtaining the permission for alienation and also the phode. Therefore, the appellant was ready to obtain the order from the Tahsildar for phoding the land. Thereafter, requisition was made for alienating the schedule property which is pending before the State Government for consideration. Meanwhile, the appellant also came to know one more case is filed by the 3rd parties against the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7824 MFA No. 7930 of 2024 defendants under the agreement of sale in O.S.No.172/2007 which was entered into compromise on 06.02.2024 where the defendants were paid the money by receiving the money from the plaintiff. Thereafter, notice was issued by the plaintiff for executing the sale deed, behind the back the defendants entered into agreement to the 3rd party on 04.07.2024 . Therefore, it is contended that the injunction is not granted the plaintiff was unable to execute the decree. Therefore, until disposal of the appeal, prayed for not to alienate the schedule property. The defendants appeared through the counsel and filed the written statement and also objection by denying the agreement of sale dated 21.3.2011. It is contended that, it is concocted document, the defendants are not able to sign, they are coolie worker working under the plaintiff. The plaintiff used to open the bank account, in the name of the defendants, he himself used to operate the account by keeping the cheque book, pass book in his hand but no point of time, the agreement was entered into between the parties, there is no signature of the other two - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7824 MFA No. 7930 of 2024 defendant. The documents are referred to the FSL for getting the expert opinion, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The property is granted prop, there is no permission to alienate the same. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the suit. Considering the arguments, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff. Hence, he is before this court. 5. Upon hearing the argument, perusal of record, especially the agreement of sale dated 21.3.2011 said to be entered between the parties where the defendants said to be agreed to sell the property for Rs.22,50,000/-, there is a reference available It was also agreed upon that after getting necessary sale permission in respect of the suit schedule property and after receipt of the balance consideration amount of Rs.16,00,000/-, the Sale Deed will be executed and the possession will be delivered. There is reference available for appellant having paid Rs.6,50,000/- under the agreement of sale. Subsequently, the pleading of the appellant reveals that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7824 MFA No. 7930 of 2024 the prior to the agreement entered for sale to the plaintiff the defendants entered into agreement with the third party and he has filed the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.172/2007, and suppressing the same, the defendants entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff. However the said suit was compromised on 06.02.2024, the documents are not denied by the defendant in respect of filing of suit against defendants and compromised on 06.02.2024. It appears that the plaintiff got issued the notice on 24.05.2024 and subsequently the defendants entered into agreement of sale with the third party on 04.07.2024 for alienating the schedule property. The documents produced by the plaintiff, agreement of sale, the payment made towards the further sale consideration, to the account of the respondent, through the online account transfer. The account statement produced by the appellant/plaintiff before the court. The application filed by the appellant on behalf of the defendants before the tahzildar for phoding and also filed an application for seeking the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7824 MFA No. 7930 of 2024 permission of the Government for alienating the schedule property. These documents prima facie goes to shows that there was agreement entered between the parties, for alienation of schedule property. However the property cannot be alienated without permission of the State Government as per Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act). Therefore, the appellant himself filed an application for seeking permission. Of course the permission not yet granted. The Tahsildar already granted permission for phoding the land. It appears that the defendants though denied entire agreement of sale and receipt of payment, however, the agreement of sale dated 04.07.2024 was entered into between the defendants along with the 3rd party is not in dispute. It reveals that the defendants were trying to alienate the schedule property. The matter is required for detailed consideration by the full fledged trial by the Trial Court, however until disposal of the suit, the property requires to be protected. Ofcourse the defendants cannot - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7824 MFA No. 7930 of 2024 alienate the schedule property without permission of the Government. Apart from that, even if the plaintiff obtain any decree, he cannot execute them without permission of the State, as per the alienation clause in the grant or occupancy certificate issued by the State Government and there is a prohibition for alienating the schedule property. Such being the case, if the injunction is granted not to alienate the schedule property. That will not cause any obstruction or prejudice to the defendant. On the other hand, if permission is granted to alienate the property, the very purpose of filing suit will become infructous. Therefore, Trial Court not considered the order of Tahsildar or appreciated documents properly and dismissed the application. Hence, it is required to be modified and set aside. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby allowed. The application filed by the appellant is allowed. The defendants are directed not to alienate or create any 3rd party interest or change the nature of the property, until disposal of the suit. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7824 MFA No. 7930 of 2024 All the contentions are kept open. The respondent counsel shown two cheques which was filled by the name of the appellant for ₹35 lakhs and ₹50 lakhs and ₹15 lakh, totally of ₹1 crore, but there is no signature of the respondents. The cheque book is with the custody of the respondents. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT:SK