- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34699 MFA No. 5167 of 2025 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. 5167 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: PRAKASH CHAND, SON OF LATE DHARMCHAND, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLATNO.B-1205, 1206, MANTRI GREEN, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y. T.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PILLAMMA, WIFE OF LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SMT. ANJNAMMA, D/A OF LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. SMT. AKKAYAMMA, WIFE OF LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 4. SMT. MAYLAMMA, WIFE OF LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34699 MFA No. 5167 of 2025 5. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, WIFE OF LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT BERASANARA VILLAGE, KUNDANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110. 6. SRI. VENKATAPPA, SON OF LATE VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7, DYAVARAHALLI, KUNDANA HALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6; R1 TO R5 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 03.09.2025.) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO. 1292/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C , DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34699 MFA No. 5167 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.1292/2024 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devahahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, thereby, the application is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract and also for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 13.12.2024 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for other consequential relief of injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the owners of the suit schedule property having agreed to sell in favour of the plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.2,10,00,000/- and an earnest amount of Rs.70,00,000/- paid to defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the said agreement is reduced into agreement of sale dated 24.05.2023. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 5 before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34699 MFA No. 5167 of 2025 date of agreement of sale that is on 03.03.2023 have executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff. When this being the fact, defendant Nos.1 to 5 have sold the suit schedule land in favour of defendant No.6 on 13.12.2024. Thereafter, on 20.12.2024 the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has paid the substantial amount of sale consideration to defendant Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1 to 5 have also executed the GPA in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has prima facie case and balance of convenience and if defendant No.6 further alienates the suit schedule land in favour of third party, it could lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, to avoid such situations, the application filed for temporary injunction restraining defendant No.6 not to further alienate the suit schedule land is not correct. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34699 MFA No. 5167 of 2025 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.6/defendant No.6 submitted that defendant Nos.1 to 5 being the owners have sold the property in favour of defendant No.6. The plaintiff is the mere agreement of sale holder. Though, there was GPA, but there are no power given to the plaintiff to make alienation of the land. Further submitted that the GPA was dated 03.03.2023 before the date of agreement of sale and based on the GPA, the plaintiff himself has created agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, this agreement of sale is by the plaintiff himself. Therefore, this shows that the plaintiff has played fraud. This is observed by the trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case. Hence, justified the order of dismissal of the application filed for temporary injunction. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34699 MFA No. 5167 of 2025 5. Heard the argument from the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material available at this stage in the appeal. 6. 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 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? 7. In the present case, the plaintiff is the mere holder of agreement of sale dated 24.05.2023. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34699 MFA No. 5167 of 2025 Defendant Nos.1 to 5 admittedly are the owners of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have sold the suit property to defendant No.6 on 13.12.2024. The trial Court has observed at Paragraph No.10 that the plaintiff on the basis of alleged GPA dated 03.03.2023 has created an agreement of sale dated 24.05.2025 showing that defendant Nos.1 to 5 are selling the land represented by the plaintiff being the GPA holder, but vender is the plaintiff himself. This is observed by the trial Court in its order. The total sale consideration is shown as Rs.2,10,00,000/- and out of it, it is shown that the plaintiff has paid Rs.70,00,0000/- to defendant Nos.1 to 5. 8. But upon considering the copy of document of agreement of sale, signatures of defendant Nos.1 to 5 are found in the agreement of sale. Therefore, whether really defendant Nos.1 to 5 have received the part sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- from the plaintiff or not is the question for trial in the suit. It is submitted that defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the written statement have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34699 MFA No. 5167 of 2025 admitted the execution of agreement of sale. Whatever it may be execution of agreement of sale is to be tested in trial in the suit. Just because defendant Nos.1 to 5 have admitted the agreement of sale that does not entitle the plaintiff to claim equitable relief of injunction under the facts and circumstances as above discussed. 9. Therefore, as observed by the trial Court at paragraph No.10, the agreement of sale is by the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff himself. Further defendant Nos.1 to 5 have sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.6 before institution of the suit. If any alienation is made during the pendency of the suit, that would be hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Even if defendant No.6 alienates the suit schedule land that would not prejudice the claim of the plaintiff as he is protected by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 10. Considering all these reasonings as above discussed, whether to exercise equitable relief of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34699 MFA No. 5167 of 2025 injunction, the plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case and balance of convenience and if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then what would be the loss sustained by the plaintiff is not convinced. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.i, ii and iii in negative. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The observations made above shall not influence the trial Court in deciding the suit. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68