- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2247 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS D/O KRISHNAPPA 2. MR. CHANDRASHEKAR N. AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. S/O LATE NANJAPPA 3. MRS. C. M. KIRAN REDDY @ ROOPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O G. NAGA REDDY AND D/O CHANDRASHEKAR N 4. MASTER PUNITH N. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. S/O G. NAGA REDDY. 5. KUMARI PAVANA N. AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. D/O G. NAGA REDDY. APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.492, 'PUNITH NILAYA', MUNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI POST, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, BENGALURU – 560 037. 6. SMT. C.V. LAKSHMI, D/O. CHANDRASHEKAR N. W/O. HARISH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 7. MASTER KUSHAL REDDY H. S/O HARISH, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. APPELLANT NOS.6 AND 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.35, 3RD CROSS, NEAR L.G. FOOD ROAD, TAVEREKERE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. BRIJESH REDDY C S/O. H. CHANDRA REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT NO.542, 15TH CROSS 4TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560102 4TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT. BENGALURU-560102. 2. M/S SNN HOMES LLP. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SNN HOMES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SNN MIND'S EYE, NO.4. 2ND FLOOR DIAGONAL ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER, MR. NIKHIL AGARWAL. 3. MR. NIKHIL AGARWAL DESIGNATED PARTNER, M/S SNN HOMES LLP. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SNN HOMES) REGISTERED OFFICE AT SNN MIND'S EYE. NO.4, 2ND FLOOR, DIAGONAL ROAD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGLAURU- 560 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SAGAR G. NAHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; V/O DATED 26.04.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.4 IN O.S.NO.968/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING I.A. NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs questioning the order dated 12.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.IV filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.968/2021 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru1, thereby, the application filed for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction not to change the nature of lands is dismissed. 1hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that certain sale deeds, as set out in the prayer in detail, are null and void and for cancellation of the sale deeds, which are not binding on the plaintiffs. Also, the relief claimed is that directing the defendants to pay the sale consideration amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization and for other consequential reliefs. 4. The sum and substance of the case made out in the plaint by the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule land and defendant No.1 approached plaintiff No.1 and offered to purchase the suit property for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.42,00,000/- and accordingly, an agreement of sale was executed on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 09.10.2009. At the time of execution of said agreement of sale, defendant No.1 had paid 10,00,000/- as an advance amount and the remaining balance amount would be paid at the time of registration. However, even after lapse of 5 years, defendant No.1 had not come forward and did not get the sale deed registered by paying the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.32,00,000/-. However, defendant No.1 without getting registration of sale deed by paying balance sale consideration amount of Rs.32,00,000/-, introduced defendant No.3 and then the plaintiffs negotiated with defendant No.3 in respect of suit schedule properties and entered into an another agreement of sale between the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 for total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. 5. It is pleaded that the entire negotiations were held between defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 and the plaintiffs were precluded by defendant No.1. Later, as per the instructions of defendant No.1, the plaintiff Nos.1, 2, 3 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 and 6 have agreed to execute the registered agreement of sale dated 19.04.2014 in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have paid advance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to defendant No.1, but defendant No.1 has not paid the said amount to the plaintiffs. Further, defendant Nos.1 and 3 insisted that the plaintiffs to execute a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of defendant No.2 enabling them to obtain the conversion of the suit schedule property from agricultural into non-agricultural land and later on through such GPA, a sale deed was executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 as if the plaintiffs have authorized them to sell the suit land in favour of defendant No.2. Therefore, it is pleaded that all the defendants played fraud and thereafter, defendant No.3 sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.2. On these allegations filed the suit for declaration. 6. In reply to the plaint, the defendants have made pleadings in the written statement and the sum and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 substance of the written statement is that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have paid the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs. Earlier, there was an agreement of sale between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.42,00,000/- and therefore, as per the instructions of defendant No.1, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have paid the entire amount to defendant No.1. If there is any rift that arises between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 that is an internal matter between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. However, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have paid the entire sale consideration amount to defendant No.1 and accordingly, by virtue of the GPA executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.3, defendant No.3 executed the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. Hence, there is valid conveyance of property and the suit filed is false and frivolous. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 7. Earlier, the plaintiffs have filed an application for restraining the defendants from making alienations, but it was rejected. Subsequently, the plaintiffs have filed this instant application, I.A.No.IV for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction with a different prayer to restrain the defendants from changing the nature of suit schedule property, but which was also dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the Trial Court has dismissed the application only on the reason that the earlier application filed for temporary injunction not to alienate was dismissed and hence, the present application, I.A.No.IV was also dismissed. The reasons given by the Trial Court are not correct. The Trial Court also assigned another reason that the plaintiffs have executed another agreement and GPA and whether the sale of land by defendant No.1 to himself and to others is proper or not cannot be decided at this juncture, but the plaintiffs themselves have admitted the execution of the agreement - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 of sale and GPA; hence, it requires once again trial. Therefore, dismissing the application is not correct and argued that how the defendants have played fraud is in detail averred in the plaint. Thus, in this way made out prima facie case and balance of convenience. Hence, prays to grant an order of temporary injunction. 9. Further submitted that defendant No.3 being the GPA holder has executed an agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 is none other than a partner in the defendant No.2/firm. Therefore, the sale deed by defendant No.3 to himself based on the GPA and thus in this way, fraud is played and the defendants have not paid the entire sale consideration amount. Hence, pray to grant an order of temporary injunction. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SHANTI DEVI (SINCE - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN VS. JAGAN DEVI AND OTHERS2. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that there might have been internal dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as defendant No.1 is a relative of the plaintiffs and had entered into an agreement of sale on an earlier occasion. However, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have paid the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the plaintiffs through defendant No.1 and such amount was paid through two cheques. Therefore, it is also stated in the agreement of sale and the GPA was executed authorizing defendant No.3 to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. Therefore, when this being the fact, prima facie it is proved that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have not played fraud and paid the entire sale consideration amount to the plaintiffs. 2 Civil Appeal No.11795/2025 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 11. Further, submitted that the plaintiffs on their own consciousness have executed the agreement of sale and the complaint filed by the plaintiffs’ attained culmination into filing B file report. The B file report reveals that the plaintiffs have received a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- through cheques. Therefore, this goes to belie the case of the plaintiffs; hence, the plaintiffs have not made a prima facie case and balance of convenience, which is rightly considered by the Trial Court therefore, justified the order passed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application. Thus, prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DAHIBEN VS. ARVINDBHAI KALYANAJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) DEAD THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS3 and the judgment of this Court in the case of ANN 3 (2020) 7 SCC 366 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 VARGHESE AND OTHERS VS. K.V. PRASAD AND OTHERS4. 13. Heard the arguments from both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material available at this stage and findings, the following points would arise for my consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs make out prima facie case on the materials produced before the Trial Court? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs make out balance of convenience to grant an order of temporary injunction? iii. Whether, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury? 14. Upon considering the submissions made before the Court, it is an admitted fact that before the alleged sale deeds, which are under challenge were under the ownership of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 has entered 4 MFA Nos.4185 and 4187 of 2025 dated 19.06.2025 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs for sale consideration of Rs.42 lakhs and an advance amount of Rs.10 lakhs was paid to the plaintiffs. But even after lapse of five years, defendant No.1 had not come forward to get registered sale deed by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.32 lakhs. Subsequently, there was agreement of sale on 19.04.2014 between plaintiffs and defendant No.3. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.3. 15. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs authorized defendant No.2 to execute the registered sale deed and one of the clause is to sign and execute the sale deed on behalf of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the defendants has relied on the said General Power of Attorney. Further the copy of the agreement of sale dated 19.04.2014 is produced and that there is recital that the purchasers who is defendant No.2 had paid a sum of Rs.1 Crore by Cheque bearing No.589495 dated 27.02.2014 drawn on Syndicate Bank - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 and Cheque bearing No.531589 dated 15.05.2014 drawn on Vijaya Bank in favour of defendant No.1 to pay the said amount towards the plaintiffs and balance amount of Rs.50 lakhs will be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. Therefore, it is contended that an amount of Rs.1 Crore will be paid to the plaintiffs through defendant No.1. Also places reliance on ‘B’ report filed by the police upon the complaint made by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have received an amount of Rs.28 lakhs, which is also found in the complaint. Therefore, it is the case of the defendants that they have paid the entire sale consideration amount through two cheques as above stated. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs produced the copy of the registered sale deed dated 16.10.2020, in which, there is recital that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have paid an amount of Rs.1 Crore by Cheque bearing No.589495 dated 27.02.2014 drawn on Syndicate Bank and cheque bearing No.531589 dated 15.05.2014 drawn - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 on Vijaya Bank in favour of defendant No.1. Further it is recited that a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was paid through Cheque No.591323 dated 08.03.2014, but these two cheques are dated prior to the date of agreement of sale. Moreover, as per defendants these amounts have been paid to defendant No.1, but not to the plaintiffs as revealed in these documents. Therefore, the question for consideration in the suit is whether defendant No.1 has paid the amount to the plaintiffs or not. 17. It is the assertion of defendant Nos.2 and 3 that they have paid the amount to the plaintiffs through defendant No.1. But it is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 has not paid the amount. Therefore, this makes a triable issue in the trial before the Civil Court regarding payment to the plaintiffs. Though, the plaintiffs have admitted in their complaint filed before the police that the plaintiffs have received an amount of Rs.28 lakhs from defendant Nos.2 and 3. Further the sale deed is executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 Defendant No.3 is none other than one of the partner in defendant No.2 Firm. Therefore, the sale deed is executed by and between defendant No.3 himself on the basis of defendant No.2 Firm. Therefore, in this regard the plaintiffs has made out prima facie case that the defendants have not paid the sale consideration amount and alleged that the defendants have played fraud and these pleadings of fraud is pleaded in the plaint and this is the matter for trial before the trial Court. 18. When this being the fact, having difference in factual matrix in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through Legal Representatives and Others5 and in the present case found to be having different factual matrix, hence not applicable. Here these two aspects are to be considered in the trial in the suit that makes out prima facie case and balance of convenience as revealed by the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain an order of temporary 5(2020) 7 SCC 366 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 injunction by this Court. The reasonings given by the trial Court are found to be perverse that just because General Power of Attorney and agreement of sale were executed and when the sale of the land through sale deed is between the same persons by showing defendant No.2 as a Firm is amounting to registration of sale deed with the help of General Power of Attorney and whether it is proper or not is the question for trial and on these reasons dismissal of the application is not proper as it is perverse one. 19. Further, just because, an earlier application is filed trying to restrain the defendants from alienation of the suit property is dismissed does not amount to res judicata, since the nature of prayer made in the earlier application and later application are two different prayers. Therefore, in this regard, the finding of the trial Court is perverse in nature. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.i, ii and iii in affirmative. Thus, the plaintiffs are granted an - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38105 MFA No. 2247 of 2025 order of temporary injunction. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 12.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.968/2021 by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) The order of temporary injunction restraining respondent Nos.2 and 3 or any other persons claiming under them from changing the nature/alter of the suit schedule property is granted. (iv) No order as to costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA,PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19