- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2092 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: VISHNU KIRAN KABA S/O K.V. SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT 696, 27TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS SECTOR-2, H.S.R LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 102 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SHIVARAJU M.K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. Y. VENKATESH S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT CHIKKADASARAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 125 2. NAVEEN C.V S/O Y. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 3. RAMACHANDRA C.Y S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 4. ARJUN GOWDA C.R S/O RAMACHANDRA C.Y AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 5. SURESH C.Y S/O LATE YELALPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 6. CHIRANTH S/O SURESH C.Y AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 R/AT CHIKKADASARAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 125 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHNU HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN OS.NO.1033/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, REJECTING THE IA.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.09.2024 passed in OS No.1033/2021 by the Prl.Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1(a) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents-plaintiffs from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property was dismissed. 2. The appellant being defendant before the trial Court is aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting has application despite his claim of lawful possession under a registered sale deed and alleged payments made towards the full sale consideration and other incidental expenses. 3. It is the case of the appellant that, the property in question was purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 2.11.2021. According to him, the sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 consideration reflected in the sale deed was Rs.49,00,000/- which he has fully paid, and in addition, he has expended a substantial sum towards ancillary arrangements and settlements relating to earlier transactions and disputes with the family members of the vendors. The appellant specifically contends that, he is in settled, lawful and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and any interference at this interlocutory stage by the respondents would cause irreparable harm. The appellant further states that, he had paid Rs.23,00,000/- directly to the plaintiffs and additionally disbursed Rs.39,00,000/- to the daughter of plaintiff no.3. by name Swathi to obtain a confirmation deed which was essential in the context of resolving potential family disputes that might have affected his title or possession. 4. On the other hand, the respondents filed a suit for cancellation of the said sale deed, asserting that the actual sale consideration agreed was Rs.88,00,000/- and that only Rs.14,50,000/- had been paid. They contended - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 that, several cheques mentioned in the sale deed were either not issued or dishonoured. Based on this allegation, they not only challenged the validity of the sale deed, but also, sought temporary injunction against the appellant from alienating the property. However, the learned trial Court in its impugned order, found that, neither side approached the Court with clean hands due to the apparent discrepancy between the stated and the alleged consideration amounts. Consequently, it rejected both the applications filed by the plaintiffs and the application filed by the defendant. 5. Now the defendant is before this Court challenging the impugned order whereas, appellant has not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned order. 6. Upon a careful perusal of the material on record including the contents of the sale deed, affidavit filed before the trial Court and rival submissions, it is evident that, the appellant is in possession of the suit schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 property pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 02.11.2021. Even the plaintiffs have prayed for the relief of possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs on receipt of part sale consideration paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at the time of execution of sale deed dated 02.11.2021 at prayer B. in the prayer column in the plaint in OS No.1033/2021. 7. The record show that, the sale deed is duly executed and registered instrument and unless it is set aside through appropriate judicial proceedings, it continues to have a presumptive legal sanctity under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The allegation of respondents that, only Rs.14,50,000/- was received and the rest of the cheques were dishonored may well be a matter for a detailed trial and adjudication. It is premature to accept that, the entire consideration was unpaid solely based on the dishonor of certain cheques especially when the appellant asserts that, the remaining cheques were either not presented by the plaintiffs - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 themselves or were replaced by other payments made as per family arrangements. 8. On perusal of the impugned order, the learned trial Court appears to have conflated issues of contractual default with those of possession. The remedy for unpaid sale consideration lies elsewhere either in recovery or seeking cancellation of sale deed by following rigor of law and proving fraud, coercion, or other vitiating elements. The unilateral act of the plaintiff in issuing a legal notice for cancellation of the sale deed, without recourse to Court, cannot operate to negate the effects of a registered conveyance or to dispossess a person put in lawful possession thereby. That the plaintiffs have chosen to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed reinforces the appellant's possession and prima facie entitlement under the sale deed, pending adjudication of the dispute. 9. The concept of a prima facie case must be examined in light of legal entitlement as projected by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 appellant. A registered sale deed even if disputed, as to consideration, provides a strong prima facie case unless impeached by concrete evidence. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the appellant, as he is in possession and has developed the land invested resources, and has acted on the faith of a registered document. Any interference at this stage, particularly when the title dispute is subjudice would cause serious and irreparable prejudice. Possession once settled especially in civil property disputes should not be lightly disturbed. This principle is reiterated time and again flows from equitable considerations embedded in the jurisprudence surrounding it. 10. As regards the trial Court finding on lack of clean hands, it may be noted that, both the parties have different versions of consideration. The discrepancy is evident. However, this discrepancy by itself should not be a determinative of interim relief, unless the party seeking such relief is found to be engaged in suppression of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 material facts or fraudulent conduct. The appellant, in this case, has consistently maintained the sale consideration mentioned in the deed and has presented documentary evidence of substantial payments made. The respondents, on the contrary, while alleging a higher consideration, have not produced cogent documents contemporaneous with the sale deed to corroborate the same. The learned counsel for appellant made available registered sale deed dated 2.11.2021 during the course of argument. On perusal of the same, in para.1 of the said sale deed, it is stated that, there are various payments so made from clause (a) to (j). The plaintiffs are the signatories to the said sale deed. The contention of the plaintiffs regarding sale consideration at Rs.88 lakhs as the agreed price seems to rest primarily on oral assertion and cheque related allegations which again require full fledged evidence. The trial Court's approach in denying interim relief merely on the ground of mutual discrepancy, without - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 appreciating the settled position of the appellant falls short of judicial scrutiny. 11. It is settled law that, interim injunctions are not to be granted or refused on the basis of final adjudication or speculative conclusions. The law favours the maintenance of status quo to prevent further complications. If a person is in settled possession under colour of title and assets that, such possession is being interfered with, the Courts are required to test whether his possession is lawful and whether the interference if permitted, would cause harm irreparable in nature. In the instant case, both these tests tilt in favour of the appellant. No injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court which further indicates that their possession is not established. Therefore, preventing the appellant from enjoying what is legally conveyed to him would result in grave hardship to the appellant. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 12. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court's order dated 10.09.2024 which is impugned in this appeal is liable to be set aside and consequentially application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1(a) read with Section 151 of CPC deserves to be allowed. It is said that, the protection sought is consistent with the law related to injunctions, especially in disputes where the underlying title remains to be determined and where possession is not in question. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) The Misc.First Appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 10.9.2024 passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal in OS No.1033/2021 is hereby set aside. (iii) The application filed under Order 39 Rule 1(a) read with 151 of CPC is allowed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28604 MFA No. 2092 of 2025 (iv) Respondent plaintiffs are restrained from interfering with appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. (v) Under the circumstances, costs made easy. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35