1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.14065 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHIVAPRASAD S/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O 4TH CROSS, A N K ROAD, VENKATESHNAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . RAZIYA BEGUM W/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 2 . MOHAMMAD SALIM S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O TEVARACHATNAHALLI, SHANTHINAGR, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 3 . MOHAMMED KALEEM S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O 2ND CROSS, NEAR GOUSIYA MASJID, SHANTHINAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 2 4 . MOHAMMED NADEEM S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 5 . MOHAMMED WASEEM S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 6 . MOHAMMED AZEEM S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 7 . FAHEEMUDDIN S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD, MILLAGHATTA, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 8 . SHAKIRA BEGUM W/O LATE HIDAYATHULLA, D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O RML NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 9 . THAHIRA BEGUM W/O. SHAFIULLA, D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO 97, AZAD ROAD, 3RD CROSS, SAGAR TALUK 577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 10 . NASIRA BEGUM W/O MOHAMMED SAB, D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O 24-3, 3 MAIN ROAD, SORABA TOWN 577429, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 11 . MUNZIRA BEGUM W/O FARHAN HUSSAIN, D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O P AND T COLONY, SHIVAMOGGA CITY 577201 12 . MASTURA BEGUM W/O SYED SAHAIL, D/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O GANGAPARMESHWARI ROAD, SAGAR 577401, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 TO R-12) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2021 IN M.A.NO.9/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, DR. K.MANMADHA RAO, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: 4 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 30.03.2021 passed in M.A.No.9/2020 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga (Annexure-E) (herein after referred to as “the Appellate Court” for short). 2. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and the respondent before the Appellate Court. Respondent Nos.1 to 12 were defendant Nos.1 to 12 and appellant Nos.1 to 12 before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court respectively. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner filed a suit for the relief of specific performance contending that the husband of the first respondent Sri.Mohammed Ibrahim, during his life time executed an agreement of sale, to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and received an advance of Rs.1,60,000/-. It was agreed that the sale deed to be executed after the lease to run the petrol bunk which comes to an end on 17.08.2015. However, 5 the respondents failed to perform their part of obligation by defaulting in coming forward to execute the sale deed. 4. Having left with no other option, the petitioner herein was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.69/2018 on the file of the V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, wherein, I.A.No.1 was filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property and an ex-parte ad interim injunction was passed by an order dated 21.01.2020. Relevant portion of order passed by the trial court on I.A.No.1 reads as under: While granting temporary injunction the court must be satisfied that there exists prima facie case; irreparable loss is likely to be caused from the injury before legal right can be established and greater inconvenience is likely to be caused by withholding than by granting it. Having answered the points in affirmative and also that no loss or injury would be caused to the defendant if the relief of temporary injunction is granted and also that to avoid multiplicity of litigations, I pass the following order: ORDER I.A. No.I filed by the plaintiff U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 is hereby allowed. The defendants or any persons on their behalf are hereby restrained and directed not to alienate or to 6 encumber suit schedule property in any manner during the pendency of the suit. 5. The Trial Court having heard both sides continued the order of temporary injunction. The respondents, aggrieved by this order, filed Miscellaneous Appeal in M.A.No.9/2020 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga. 6. This court, while hearing the matter for admission, on hearing both the counsels, vide order dated 23.08.2021, directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards the subject property without creating any third party rights and the interim order is in operation till date. Thereafter, the matter came up for final hearing on 30.07.2025. 7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Court has failed to observe that the power in the miscellaneous appeal is very much limited and it can interfere only if the order of the Trial Court was ambiguous. It was further contended that the Trial Court, by reaching to a conclusion that there was a prima facie case, granted an interim injunction and the same does not suffer from any illegality. 7 8. It was also contended that the Appellate Court has not considered the issue of balance of convenience and hardship that would be caused to the parties. It was further contended that the Appellate Court came to an erroneous conclusion that the observation of the Trial Court has to be interfered with as the prima facie case was without looking into the agreement. 9. The other contention that was raised was that the Appellate Court committed an error by holding that the agreement was on plain paper and not on stamp paper and as such, it cannot be defined as document of agreement to sale. 10. It was also contended that the Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that if the further alienation was not prevented, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and rights of third parties would also be affected. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the alleged agreement of sale is on a white paper and not on a stamp paper and the possession is not given. It is specifically mentioned that the Article 5(e)(ii) of the Stamp Act provides for 0.25 Rupees for every 100 rupees or part thereof on the market value equal to the amount of consideration as proper stamp duty to the 8 agreement of sale without delivery of possession. In this case the said agreement is on a white paper, as such, it is not a document properly stamped and cannot attract the ingredients of agreement of sale. 12. The Respondents further contended that agreement of sale is a fraudulent one and if there had been an intention to purchase, there would have been a stamp paper and not white paper. 13. The Appellate Court has observed that the observation of the trial Court has to be interfered as the first point of prima facie case is not as per the meaning of the prima facie case and without looking into the form of the agreement of sale in this suit, the trial Court came to the conclusion that on production of original agreement of sale, the plaintiff has shown balance of convenience in his favour. The said observation was not sustained by the Appellate Court as even though the plaintiff has produced the original agreement of sale, as discussed above, it is on a plain paper and not on the stamp paper, which cannot be defined as a document. It is further observed that even though the interim relief sought for is not to alienate the suti schedule property, it is specific to mention that Section 52 of Transfer of 9 Property Act comes to the rescue of the plaintiff if there is any sale transactions pending the suit. Thus, the observation of the trial Court that it would lead to multifarious litigations, cannot be accepted. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the order of the Trial Court is arbitrary and allowed the miscellaneous appeal. 14. The Trial Court in its order dated 21.01.2020 came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has made out that late Mohammed Ibrahim entered into sale agreement dated 23.01.2000 in favour of the plaintiff and on the same day part sale consideration was received showing that there is an apparent case in his favour and not frivolous or vexatious. It is specific to mention that prima facie should not be confused to mean prima facie title over the property. Prima facie case means that the plaintiff has shown that there is ground for trial. In this case the observation of the trial court that there is apparent case in favour of plaintiff on the basis of agreement of sale shows that the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has shown execution of agreement of sale without discussing if there are grounds for trial made out by the plaintiff showing a prima facie case in his favour. Further trial court came to conclusion that on perusal of the documents prima 10 facie case is made out and the balance of convenience lies on the plaintiff’s side as per the original sale agreement produced by the plaintiff and if temporary injunction is not granted, the suit schedule property may be alienated which may cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff and the same will lead to multifarious litigations. 15. In view of the above submissions, it appears that the submissions made by both the counsels are subject to the trial, i.e., on adducing the evidence of the parties and filing of the documents are concerned. With the above observations, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has to be disposed of with a direction to modify the order dated 30.03.2021 passed in M.A.No.9/2020 passed on I.A.No.9 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga. 16. The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The order dated 30.03.2021 passed in M.A.No.9/2020 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, is hereby modified. 11 The parties are directed to maintain status-quo as regards the subject property without creating any third party rights till the disposal the suit. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv Ct-adp