- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2459 MFA No. 103458 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103458 OF 2022 (CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI BABASAHEB DUNDAPPA BASHETTI, AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H. NO.3802, PADAGATTI TOT (PADAGUDI) SANKESHWAR, TALUK. HUKKERI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-590001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI MAHAMMEDALI MAHAMMADGOUSA MOMIN, AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HASA ONI, SANKESHWAR, TALUK. HUKKERI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SHRI. ABDUL RASOOL MOH. GOUSE MOMIN, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. HASA ONI, SANKESHWAR, TALUK. HUKKERI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SHRI. SWAMY JAGADGURU SHANKRACHARYA MATA, SANKESHWAR, TAL. HUKKERI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI, R/P BY SACHIDANAND ABHINAV VIDYANARSHIMBHARTI SWAMIJI, SANKESHWAR-591313. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1, R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2022, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUKKERI, ITINERARY COURT AT SANKESHWAR ON IA NO.1 IN OS. NO.94/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.1 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER 39 RULE OF 1 AND 2 CPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2459 MFA No. 103458 of 2022 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 05.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.94/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri Itinerary Court, Sankeshwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short), on I.A.No.I filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short). 2. The plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract. In the suit, the plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC praying to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property, while the plaintiff is merely an agreement holder. According to the plaintiff, the agreement is an unregistered agreement and does not provide possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff’s apprehension is that, the plaintiff being agreement - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2459 MFA No. 103458 of 2022 holder and if the defendants have sold the property, it would create third party rights. If anyone purchases the property, it would attract doctrine of lis pendens and the purchaser would be bound by the decree passed in the suit. However, since the defendants are owners of the suit schedule property, they cannot be curtailed in exercising their rights. The plaintiff, being merely an agreement holder, should be aware that their apprehension is addressed by the principle of lis pendens as per Section 53A of the Transfer of property Act. 3. Therefore, there is no error found in the order dismissing the application and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60