Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 72996 (KAR)

MR ARUN ROSHAN v. MR EDWARD PETER TAURO

MFA/2475/2024 · 2025-09-03

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34515 MFA No. 2475 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2475 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: MR. ARUN ROSHAN S/O ALEX PETER PINTO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO 3/13, KOPPALAPADU HOUSE, TENKA YEKKARY VILLAGE, NIDDODI, NEERUDE, MANGALORE TALUK, D K DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR. HARSHARAJ MELANTA S/O. MR. KESHAV MELANTA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 3-85/1, SRI DEVI ANUGRAHA BALIKE, BONDANTHILA, D K DISTRICT - 574 219. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. EDWARD PETER TAURO S/O LATE PETER TAURO AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT SEQUIERA COMPOUND, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34515 MFA No. 2475 of 2024 OPPOSITE TO VALENCIA CHURCH, KANKANADY MANGALURU, D K DISTRICT – 575 002 2. MRS. SUZY RODRIGUES W/O EDWARA PETER TAURO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT SEQUIERA COMPOUND, OPPOSITE TO VALENCIA CHURCH, KANKANADY, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 002. 3. MR. IVAN MARK SEQUIERA S/O VICTOR SEQUIERA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT SEQUIERA COMPOUND, OPPOSITE TO VALENCIA CHURCH, KANKANADY MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT – 575 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANDARAMA.K AND N. NANDITA DAS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2 IN CP 8011/2024) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NOS. 2 IN OS.NO.265/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU D.K., DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34515 MFA No. 2475 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.265/2023 challenging the order dated 12.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.II filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.265/2023 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada1 thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed. 3. The appellant/plaintiff is claiming to be a holder of agreement of sale stated to have been executed by the defendants. It is pleading of the plaintiff that the defendants have not come forward to execute the sale deed; therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit and also filed an application for grant of an order of 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34515 MFA No. 2475 of 2024 temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making alienation over the suit schedule properties. 4. The Trial Court has dismissed the application filed for temporary injunction on the reason that whatever the transactions made by the defendants are hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the TP Act’) Admittedly, the defendants are owners of the property and the plaintiff is a mere holder of agreement of sale. Though the defendants are disputing agreement of sale, but there are still other considerations in the suit regarding whether to grant decree for specific performance or not, which is at the discretion of the Court. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in observing that any other transactions during the pendency of the suit are hit by Section 52 of the TP Act. The Trial Court is correct in exercising its discretion while considering the equitable relief. Hence, there is no need to make interfere with the order. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34515 MFA No. 2475 of 2024 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of appeal having been disposed of, pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58