- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.297 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.SANTHOSH.M S/O SRI. MACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 12, SHIVA NILAYA, 3RD MAIN HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 2. SRI. RAVISH KUMAR. P S/O SRI. PUTTAMARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3/140 BAGUR ROAD, BEGAPLLI, HOSUR - 635 126. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTHA.H.M..,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N. HANUMANTA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY @ KODATHI NARYANA REDDY AGED ABHOUT 76 YEARS 2. SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O HANUMANTHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 3. KODANDA KUMARA REDDY S/O HANUMANTHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 068. 4. SMT. H. SAVITHA, D/O SRI. N. HANUMANTHA REDDY, W/O. PRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT 111/1, PRAKASH REDDY BUILDING, NEAR SGR DENTAL COLLAGE, MUNNEKOLLAL, MARATHALLI POST, BENGALURU – 37. 5. SRI. H. KAVITHA, D/O. SRI. N. HANUMANTHA REDDY, W/O. SRI VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.689, 12TH CROSS, 26TH MAIN, 1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 036. 6. SMT. MAMATHA D/O. SRI. N. HANUMANTHA REDDY, W/O. SRI. BABU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT.NO. 189, NEAR HONGASANDRA BUS STOP, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 68. 7. SRI. JAYARAM REDDY, S/O. LATE SHAMANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO. 93/2, 29TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 76. 8. SRI. NARENDRA BABU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 S/O LATE B.H. MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 9. SMT. CHAMPAKA W/O SRI NARENDRA BABU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 8 AND 9 ARE R/ATNO. 30, 3RD CROSS, VICTORIA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.S.VARADAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R6 ON IA NO 1 & 2 (CP.NO. 24915/2024)) THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NOs.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO. 6645/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-41), ALLOWING THE I.A. NOs. 1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the order dated 17.12.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.6645/2024 by XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-41), thereby the applications were allowed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 2. The rank of the parties is referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and to declare the agreement of sale dated 16.12.2006, General Power of Attorney dated 15.12.2009, and to declare the registered sale deed dated 03.04.2023 are null and void and for other consequential reliefs. 4. It is the case made out by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners who are in possession of the suit property and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have created the false agreement of sale dated 16.12.2006 and General Power of Attorney dated 15.12.2009 by playing fraud without paying consideration amount. Therefore, in this regard, the plaintiffs have lodged the complaint before the police by making allegation that the defendants have started interfering - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 with the possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the reliefs as above discussed. 5. The applications filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction is allowed, thereby restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property and from putting up any construction over the suit property. Being aggrieved by it, defendant Nos.4 and 5 have preferred the present appeal. 6. Heard the argument from both sides and perused the materials produced by both sides in this regard. 7. Upon considering the rival submissions and material produced at this stage, the points that arise for consideration are as under: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 before the trial Court so as to grant order of temporary injunction? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff makes out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial Court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss or injury? 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.4 and 5 submitted that there was valid agreement of sale dated 16.12.2006 and also executed General Power of Attorney on 15.12.2009 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. By virtue of the said General Power of Attorney, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have sold the suit schedule land in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 who are the appellants herein. Therefore, defendant Nos.4 and 5 became the owners of the property by virtue of the registered sale deed, which follows the possession of defendant Nos.4 and 5. When this being the prima facie - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 case in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5, then an order of temporary injunction ought not to have passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney are created and concocted one. Even according to defendant Nos.2 and 3, agreement of sale was executed on 16.12.2006 and General Power of Attorney was executed on 15.12.2009 and if the plaintiffs did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed, then defendant Nos.2 and 3 would have filed a suit for specific performance, but that is not done by the defendants, which itself shows that the agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney is created and concocted one and this is averred in the plaint as to how fraud is played. Therefore, the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and considering this, the trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 Furthermore, there are variants in the sale consideration amount and hence, it also prima facie shows that the plaintiffs have made out the case. Hence, the trial Court is correct in allowing the appeal and granting an interim order of temporary injunction. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. The suit is for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property and also for declaration that the agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney and registered sale deed dated 03.04.2023 made in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 are null and void. 11. It is averred in the plaint that when the agreement of sale dated 16.12.2006 was executed on behalf of the plaintiffs’ family, plaintiff No.1 has alone represented and on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3, defendant No.2 has represented. Furthermore, admittedly, the General Power of Attorney is unregistered by which no - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 authority was conferred in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 to sell the land in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the plaintiffs have executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.2 so as to sell the land. Just because, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have executed the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 assuming that authority is given to him by the plaintiffs through GPA, but admittedly GPA is unregistered one. Whether by such GPA, a right is conferred on defendant No.2 is the question for trial in the suit before the trial Court. Further defendant Nos.2 and 3 being the agreement of sale holder and after alleged execution of GPA on 15.12.2009 have sold out the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 on 03.04.2023. 12. Therefore, considering all these transactions as above stated, the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case. Considering the serious allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiffs as defendant Nos.1 to 3 have played fraud, if there was agreement of sale executed on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 16.12.2006, then what was the attempt made by defendant Nos.1 to 3 for performance of this agreement is not forthcoming by the defendants in the written statement. But it is the case of the defendants that by virtue of GPA, the plaintiffs authorizes defendant Nos.2 and 3 to sell away the land. Accordingly, it is the claim of defendants that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have sold the land in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, these are all the questions on the facts to be determined in trial. 13. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in observing that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and balance of convenience and if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then that would cause injury and loss to the plaintiffs, if the suit schedule land is alienated. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in observing that if the order of temporary injunction is not granted, then that would create multiplicity of proceedings, which would cause injury and loss to the plaintiffs. Therefore, granting an order of temporary injunction is found to be - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33718 MFA No. 297 of 2025 correct, which needs no interference. Accordingly, point Nos.i, ii and iii are answered in negative. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69