- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8803 MFA No. 8501 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8501 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: MR. KRISHNA SHETTY, S/O PRABHAKARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT KEREKODI HOUSE, KUTRUPADY POST AND VILLAGE, KADABA TALUK, D.K-574221. APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANIKETH KV., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN BS) AND: 1. MRS. DIVYASHREE, D/O GANGADHARA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. 2. MR. GANGADHARA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O BABU NAIK, BOTH ARE R/AT AGRASAALE HOUSE, KADABA POST AND VILLAGE, KADABA TALUK, D.K.- 574221. 3. MR. RADHAKRISHNA KS, S/O SRINIVASA MOODAMBADITHAYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KOOVECHAR, BAJATHOOR VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR, D.K-574201. RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8803 MFA No. 8501 of 2024 (BY SRI. G RAVI SHANKAR SHASTRY., FOR C/R1 AND C/R2 ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 2 IN O.S.NO. 15/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA, ALLOWING THE I.A. NO.2 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 K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure for challenging the granting of injunction against the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC filed by the respondent / plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri. Aniketha KV, appearing for Sri. Sachin BS, for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. G Ravishankar Shastry, for the caveat / respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration injunction and cancellation of sale deed dated 06.07.2020 on the ground that value of the suit property is more than `60,00,000/- but - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8803 MFA No. 8501 of 2024 defendant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion got the sale deed for `3,50,000/-, as plaintiff No.1 studying in the college belonging to defendant No.2 where defendant No.1 is working under him. It is also contended that the previously defendant No.2 and plaintiffs are entitled for agreement of sale for selling the property for `43,00,000/-. Defendant No.2 has filed the case against the plaintiffs and their mother. The case said to be compromised on 18.12.2021 where every plaintiffs has signed the sale deed which was sought for declaration and cancellation as void. Defendant No.1 given `10,00,000/- to defendant No.2 at the same time `10,00,000/- was given to plaintiff No.1 and relinquished here right. Subsequently, she is also party to the compromise. Therefore, the documents are created one over the plaintiffs. Hence, she filed the suit along with interlocutory application seeking direction not to alienate and not to create any third party interest or not put up an change in nature of the suit schedule property. 5. The defendants / appellants have appeared and filed statement of objections in written statement contending that defendant No.2 has filed suit against plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and their mother agreed to sale the property to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8803 MFA No. 8501 of 2024 defendant No.2 and the suit for compromise was filed. Defendant No.2 has paid `10,00,000/- to the plaintiffs the same was referred in the compromise application which was subsequently noted. Where in the plaintiffs signed the sale deed as well as the compromise application. There is no prima facie case made out against the plaintiffs, such being the case granting injunction is not correct. The plaintiffs were paid money and the property was already delivered to the defendants by the plaintiffs. Such being the case granting injunction is not correct. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order. 6. The Trial Court considering the same, granted injunction against the defendants not to create any third party interest or alienate the suit schedule property. Hence, defendants are before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has supported the pleading in the suit and also contended that the entire amount issued by the plaintiffs as well as the family members but inspite of it they filed the suit. Even the suit for cancellation of sale deed have already been filed, such being the case until disposal of the suit plaintiffs are not entitled for any injunction. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8803 MFA No. 8501 of 2024 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents /plaintiffs contended that plaintiff No.1 studying under defendant No.2 who is running college under correspondence, defendant No.1 is a financier working under defendant No.2. The plaintiffs and the mother along with defendant No.2 have entered into agreement of sale who have paid `43,00,000/- in the year 2015. Such being the case, the property value is more than `60,00,000/- but sale deed refers to only `3,50,000/-. But the said amount was withdrawn by the defendants in the bank. Therefore, interlocutory application is field for the bank manager to prove there transaction details. No amount has been credited to the plaintiffs account under the sale deed even compromise was held between them, after one year five months of the sale deed. Such being the case, there is a prima facie against the plaintiffs property allowed to create third party interest and to alienate the property, where the plaintiffs will be put into hardship and loss, which cannot be compensated. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the arguments and perused the records including the records of the Trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8803 MFA No. 8501 of 2024 10. The plaintiffs though executed sale deed on 06.07.2020, the sale consideration shown only `3,50,000/-. The document No.8 produced by the plaintiffs shows `3,50,000/- was withdrawn as self on 01.10.2020 in three months. It is submitted by the respondents counsel the very defendants have withdrawn the same, as the plaintiff was studying in the college belongs to the defendant No.2. However, it is a matter of trial. The agreement of sale entered between defendant No.2 and the plaintiff along with their mother in the year 2015, the property value was `43,00,000/- as per the agreement of sale, the same was compromised after the sale deed. But the sale consideration was mentioned only `3,50,000/-. Even it is not a distractive price not even 10% of the `43,00,000/-. The copy of the compromise application reveals the agreement of sale dated 09.04.2015 the plaintiffs are agreed to purchase the same for `43,00,000/-. Such being the case, it is clear that a case on behalf of the plaintiffs that the property value must be more than `50,00,000/- or `60,00,000/- as it is `43,00,000/-in the year 2015 and the sale deed was created only for `3,50,000/-. That apart the plaintiff is studying under the school of defendant No.2. The defendant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8803 MFA No. 8501 of 2024 No.1 paid the amount to the plaintiffs through defendant No.2. Therefore, there is no prima facie made out on behalf of the plaintiffs, the very sale price is a doubtful and receiving the amount under sale deed and it was withdrawn by somebody which has to be proved by the plaintiffs. Such being the case, if the properties allowed to the defendants, there is a chances of creating third party interest or putting up of any construction. Such being the case, by considering the same the Trial Court rightly passed the order against the defendants not to alienate or create any third party interest or put up any construction on the schedule property. Considering the same, this court do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court. As the parties are required to maintain the status quo of the suit schedule property. Appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21