- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37483 WP No. 24723 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.24723 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANNAMAHIMA, S/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8266 CHANNAPPA LAYOUT, KASABA NELAMANGAL TOWN, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KISHAN G S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR BASAVARAJU PATIL, S/O BASAVARAJU PATIL AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAIBHAV SOLAPUR ROAD NEAR ITI COLLEGE BIJAPUR – 586 103 2. SRI. K A BABY S/O LATE K G ANTHONY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.68, 1ST MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37483 WP No. 24723 of 2024 2ND CROSS, BASAVASAMITHI LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE – 560 097 3. SRI K NAGABASAVARAJU S/O LATE KADABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE SHAMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MANJUNATHA S. C., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 ) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY WRIT OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION GRANTING AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM CREATING ANY SORT OF THIRD-PARTY INTERESTS OVER THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE IA BY THE TRIAL COURT IN THE PENDING CASE BEARING O.S.NO. 343/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37483 WP No. 24723 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – plaintiff is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “i. Issue any Writ or any other order or direction granting an order of injunction restraining the Respondents from creating any sort of third-party interests over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the IA by the Trial Court in the pending case bearing O.S. No. 343/2024 pending before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala. ii. Issue any Writ or any other order or direction granting an order of injunction restraining the Respondents from changing the nature of the suit schedule property, such as digging the land or putting up any construction over the same till the disposal of the case in O.S. No. 343/2024 pending before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala. iii. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri Kishan G.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Manjunatha S.C., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37483 WP No. 24723 of 2024 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, respondents are defendant Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner is said to have entered into a sale agreement, agreeing to purchase the suit schedule property measuring 3 acres 33 guntas, with respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 on a total sale consideration of ₹45/- lakhs, out of which, it is the averment in the petition that ₹43/- lakhs was already paid in cash, before the witnesses to the sale agreement and balance of ₹2/- lakhs was remaining to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The agreement of sale is dated 02.05.2011, 13 years thereafter, the petitioner - plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.343/2024, seeking a decree of specific performance of the said property and puts up a board. The concerned Court has not granted temporary injunction and therefore, the petitioner – plaintiff is before this Court in the subject petition. 4. A coordinate bench of this Court has directed the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property and is in operation even as on today. 5. The respondents - defendants have now entered appearance before this Court and file an application seeking - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37483 WP No. 24723 of 2024 vacation of the status-quo order granted by the coordinate bench of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is instituted for specific performance on the score that the petitioner gains knowledge in the year 2024, that respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 has sold the property to defendant No.2, notwithstanding the agreement of sale entered into between respondent No.1 and the petitioner, way back in the year 2011. Learned counsel further submits that there was no time stipulated in the agreement to sell about the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, he had to institute a suit and that in respect to the very subject property, suits are pending. The concerned Court does not grant an injunction. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of injunction or an order not to alienate the property, against the defendants. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits there was no agreement to sell entered into at all between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The only instrument that has occurred in the case at hand is a sale deed between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. It is a fake agreement to sell that is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37483 WP No. 24723 of 2024 produced before the concerned Court or the petitioner is holding a fake agreement to sell. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a complaint is also registered before the jurisdictional police and the police after investigation, have filed a charge sheet even and the proceedings are pending in C.C.No.1583/2024. On all these circumstances, learned counsel submits that the interim order of status-quo that is granted, must be vacated. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 10. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record. The matter is pending before the concerned Court and the applications are at large to be considered by the concerned Court. It is an admitted fact that the agreement between the parties i.e., the plaintiff and defendant No.1 takes place in the year 2011 and 13 years thereafter, the petitioner institutes the suit in the subject O.S.No.343/2024, on a specious plea that defendant No.1 sells the property to defendant No.2 by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37483 WP No. 24723 of 2024 execution of a registered sale deed. Therefore, it is an agreement to sale versus the sale deed, that is to be thrashed out before the concerned Court. 11. In the light of the appearance of the petitioners, the concerned Court shall answer the application, after hearing both the parties and in accordance with law. But in the peculiar facts of this case, the interim order of status-quo subsisting, shall stand dissolved. 12. With aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands dissolved. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57