- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39289 MFA No. 6880 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6880 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. Y J GANGEGOWDA S/O JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT YELACHAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SRI MEKALA SAHADEVA REDDY S/O M BASIREDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.185 AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT DOMMALURU RING ROAD DOMMALURU, BENGALURU …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAN M S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. C NAGARAJU S/O M CHANDRASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SMT DAKSHAYANAMMA W/O C NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39289 MFA No. 6880 of 2025 3. SRI MAHADEVA PRASAD S/O C NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 4. SMT N CHANDRAKALA D/O C NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 5. SRI BASAVARAJU N S/O C NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT RENUKANAGARA, NELAMANGALA, DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DEEPA.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO VII IN OS.NO.64/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.VII FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the plaintiffs questioning the order passed on I.A.No.VII filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39289 MFA No. 6880 of 2025 and 2 of CPC in O.S. No.64/2020 dated 06.09.2025, whereby the application filed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from putting up construction / changing the nature of suit schedule property was dismissed. 2. Admittedly, defendant Nos.1 to 5 are owners of suit schedule property and the plaintiffs have entered into a registered agreement of sale on 27.08.2019 with the defendants for total sale consideration of an amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- and the defendants have received an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement. It is alleged that later on, the defendants have not come forward for execution of registration of sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have constrained to file suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. 3. It is the defence of the defendants that they have not intended to sell away the suit schedule property but the transaction between the plaintiffs and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39289 MFA No. 6880 of 2025 defendants is that the defendants have secured the loan from the plaintiffs and towards security of the said loan, the document of sale deed was executed. Therefore, they have denied the execution of sale for the purpose of selling the land. 4. Initially, the plaintiffs have filed I.A. No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC against the defendants that restraining them from alienating the suit schedule property and the same is allowed by the trial Court restraining the defendants from making alienation of the suit schedule property and it is still pending in force. Subsequently, the plaintiffs have filed the instant application i.e., I.A.No.VII under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC restraining the defendants from putting up construction/changing the nature of suit schedule property. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that now the defendants are changing the nature of the land by using the suit property as a dump - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39289 MFA No. 6880 of 2025 yard, as there was excavation in neighbouring lands and the mud collected by neighbouring lands is being dumped in the suit schedule property and there is a heap of mud dumped about 45-50 feet high, which is changing the nature of the land, and at a later stage, if the plaintiffs succeed in obtaining a decree, then it is difficult for the plaintiffs to remove the said collection of dumped mud on the suit property. Therefore, prays to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants from changing nature of land but the trial Court has rejected application filed for temporary injunction. Hence, the appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed the photographs showing the collection of mud by using vehicles. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the defendants are not making any construction over the suit schedule property, but now it is being used for dumping the mud collection from the excavation of neighbouring lands. Further, it is submitted that the defendants are owners of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39289 MFA No. 6880 of 2025 the property and they have every right and title to use their property according to their convenience. It is submitted that since the defendants are owners and the plaintiffs are mere agreement holders and already there is an interim injunction not to make any alienation, which is being enjoyed by plaintiffs. Therefore, the instant application filed is nothing but a misconceived one. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. The suit is one for specific performance of agreement of sale. The plaintiffs have filed application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making alienation of the suit schedule property which is in force. The plaintiffs are mere holders of agreement of sale. The trial Court has made observations in the order that whether agreement of sale is intending to sell the property or was it executed only towards security documents for a loan is a matter to be considered in the suit in the trial. Considering the hardship of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, the trial Court has observed that the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39289 MFA No. 6880 of 2025 property is only a source of income for the defendants. Therefore, they are at liberty to use their land. With this observation, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs. 8. In the written statement, the defendants have pleaded that the suit land is the only source of income for them. The defendants are the owners and the plaintiffs are mere holders of the agreement of sale. Therefore, upon comparing the hardship of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, if an order of temporary injunction is granted, then that would cause more harm to the defendants, virtually rendering them not to make use of their own property for their livelihood. Even if the suit is decreed, the plaintiffs will get beneficial stage to get the land, but this is a matter to be considered during the trial. Therefore, comparing hardship between both the parties, the trial Court has exercised its discretion correctly, which is not found to be perverse. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39289 MFA No. 6880 of 2025 9. Therefore, there is no need to make interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court is justified. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32