- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3043 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SAGAYALATHA W/O SRI A. JAMES AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.221 VADDARADODDI VILLAGE MARTALLI POST RAMAPURA HOBLI KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT PIN-571 444 2. A. JAMES S/O SRI. ARPUDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.221 VADDARADODDI VILLAGE MARTALLI POST RAMAPURA HOBLI KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT PIN-571 444 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJESH P, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. H.S. RAMESH S/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 RESIDING NO.416, FEET 100 ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PAVAN M, ADVOCATE ) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN OS.NO. 41/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc.First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC is filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala, in OS NO.41/2023 on I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC wherein, the learned trial Court was pleased to allow the application and temporarily restrained the defendants, their men, agents and anyone claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the `Schedule - A - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 to C' properties (excluding the house), until disposal of the suit. 2. The present appeal seeks to challenge the said order on the ground that, learned trial Court erred in granting the temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs- respondents without appreciating the facts in their entirety and the legal position governing the dispute. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are: that the respondents herein had instituted OS No.41/2023 before the trial Court seeking relief of specific performance in respect of properties described in the suit schedule as item Nos.A, B, C and D. According to the plaintiff, he and the defendants are known to each other for over decades and had several business transactions since the year 2004. The plaintiffs case is that, in view of the financial difficulties faced by the appellants, the first appellant, on behalf of her husband (second appellant) who is said to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 the actual owner of the suit properties, entered into an agreement to sell the properties to the plaintiff. 4. It is specifically contended that, the first agreement dated 25.11.2015 pertain to the properties in Sy.No.573 and 574/2, measuring 4.80 cents and 1.82 cents respectively, of DM Samudra Village. The consideration was fixed at Rs.4 lakhs of which, Rs. 2 lakhs was allegedly paid as advance. A second agreement executed on the same date related to land in Sy.NO.299/2 of Ramapura village, Marathahalli, measuring 2.36 cents for which, Rs. 2 lakhs was paid towards a total consideration of Rs.10 lakhs. According to the respondent/plaintiff, these agreements were later renewed on 31.12.2021, and the sale consideration was revised to 24 lakhs including an additional property in Sy.No.298/1 measuring 1.17 cents. It is the further case of the plaintiff that, thereafter, a final agreement dated 22.7.2022 was executed for a total sale consideration of Rs.26 lakhs, and the plaintiff claims to have paid Rs.25 lakhs. In multiple - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 trenches and was ready and willing to pay the remaining 1 lakh in two installments - Rs.50,000 by way of Cheque/DD and Rs.50,000/- at the time of registration. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that, despite his readiness and willingness, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time. Further, he alleges that, he was put in possession of Schedule A to C properties (excluding the house) and symbolic possession of Schedule-B which was said to be in the custody of a mortgagee, one Sri C.Krupakara. It was also alleged that the defendants began interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and even attempted to dispossess the said mortgagee from Schedule-D property. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance and an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an injunction against the defendants. 6. The defendants, on the other hand, categorically denied the existence of any such agreement - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 and refuted the allegations made by the plaintiff. They contend that, the properties were their absolute and self- acquired properties and that they never intended to sell them. The defendants took a specific defence that the plaintiff was a lessee in their water purification business and that they have orally agreed to lease out the premises to him at a daily rent of Rs.2,000/-, which the plaintiff defaulted in paying after a few days. According to the defendants, the lease was consequently terminated. It was further alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff during the period of lease, had stolen original property documents, forged and fabricated sale agreements, and even filed false cases including cheque bounce proceedings. According to the appellants/defendants plaintiffs lacks financial capacity to pay such a large amount and the documents produced are, fraudulent and concocted. 7. The learned trial Court, after considering the pleadings and hearing both the parties, came to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 conclusion that, the plaintiff had produced several documents, a final agreement dated 27.12.2022, and other supporting records. The trial Court observed that, although the defendants disputed the genuineness of the documents and denied execution, such issues could only be determined at the time of trial and not at the interlocutory stage. Based on the prima facie material on record, the trial Court held that, the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction that irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if no injunction is granted and that the balance of convenience also lay in his favour. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants strongly objects with regard to the findings of the trial court and has produced various documents in support of his plea and would submit that, the so called documents relied upon by the trial Court are all concocted and fabricated by the plaintiff being a lessee of the portion of the premises. He would submit that, even - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 the defendants were not having any competency to execute any agreement of sale at the relevant time. Though the so called agreement of sale was of the year 2015, no attempt was made by the plaintiff to file a suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract. There was a termination of the said agreement of sale and subsequent renewal of agreement of sale alleged by the plaintiff is concocted document to suit the purpose of the plaintiff. He would further submit, though the defendant appellants argued with regard to the conduct of the plaintiff in seeking the relief based upon the said fabricated and concocted documents, he would submit that, the trial court has erred in passing the impugned order. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the pleadings of both the parties, documents produced as well as findings of trial Court and prays to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. 9. As against this submission, the learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff supported the findings of the trial - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 Court. According to his submission, the earlier agreement of sale was culminated into a registered sale agreement on 27.12.2022 with a total sale consideration of Rs.26 lakhs. According to the plaintiff, he has paid Rs.25 lakhs and yet to pay Rs.1 lakh. He has agreed to pay balance in two installments i.e. by way of DD as well as Rs.50,000/- at the time of registration. The allegation that the documents are concocted fabricated by the plaintiff, is stoutly denied by the plaintiff. With regard to the payment, the plaintiff has produced the copy of the bank account extract for having paid Rs.1 lakh on 11.12.2021 Rs.4 lakhs on 12.12.2021 and Rs.50,000/- on 7.1.2023. He would further submit that, there were police complaints also and police have recorded the statement of witnesses. because of interference by defendants, he submits that, a suit in OS No.41/2023 came to be filed. 10. He would submit that, based upon the prima facie case made out by the plaintiff so also considering the balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the learned - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 trial Court has rightly granted temporary injunction. This injunctive order do not require any interference by this Court. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent and on perusal of the materials on record including the impugned order, the core contention advanced by the appellant's counsel is that, the trial Court mechanically allowed the application for temporary injunction without properly scrutinizing the validity of the agreements produced by the plaintiffs and without giving weight to the defence that, the documents are forged and that the plaintiff was a merely a lessee who had illegally continued possession. It is further contended that, since the plaintiff had not demonstrated the payment of sale consideration through banking transactions, the agreement cannot be relied upon to confer any right for equitable right for injunction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would further submit that, the trial Court has rightly exercised its - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 discretion in granting the injunction as the plaintiff has produced documents which prima facie show execution of the sale agreements and part performance by way of a payment of substantial consideration. It is contended that, whether the agreements are forged or genuine is a matter for trial and that the plaintiff has not only approached the court with clean hands but also continues to be in possession of the suit schedule property, as admitted to an extent even by the defendants. 12. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that, the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in granting temporary injunction. The grant or refusal of injunction is a discretionary relief governed by well established principles namely, existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the likelihood of irreparable harm. In the present case, the plaintiff has produced multiple agreements of sale, culminating in a final registered agreement dated 27.12.2022. He claims to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 have paid Rs.25 lakhs out of a total consideration and willing to pay the balance. Though the defendants have denied execution, raised allegations of fabrication, and have challenged the mode and legality of the transaction, such allegations necessarily involve disputed questions of fact which require detailed trial. At the stage of deciding an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, the court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into the veracity of the defence or test the evidentiary strength of agreement. The trial Court, having evaluated the documents and the nature of the possession claimed by the plaintiff, rightly concluded that prima facie case existed. It further found that, if the injunction is not granted, there is likelihood of plaintiff being dispossessed from the properties over which he asserts possession. The trial Court has also rightly observed that interfering with the possession of a party claiming under an agreement of sale especially when such a party is alleged to be in settled possession could result in irreparable harm. Moreover, the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 balance of convenience, in the absence of registered conveyance but, with payment of a substantial portion of the consideration, would tilt in favour of the plaintiff who continues to be in possession. 13. This Court is conscious of the fact that the defendants have vehemently contended that, the plaintiff is guilty of forging the agreements and documents and that they have filed complaints with the police. However, the question of whether the documents are fabricated or genuine is a matter that cannot be adjudicated upon at this preliminary stage. It is not open to this Court in an appeal against an interlocutory order to substitute its own satisfaction for that of trial court unless there is patent illegality or perversity in the order impugned. By perusal of impugned order, no such illegality or perversity is made out. The learned trial Judge has considered the pleadings, documents and rival contentions in detail and arrived at conclusion supported by reasoning. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30850 MFA No. 3043 of 2025 14. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the trial Court. The appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. According, I pass the following: ORDER (i) This MFA is dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala in OS No.41/2023 is hereby affirmed. Under the circumstances, no order as to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3