- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51880 MFA No. 710 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. MR ASHWATH KUMAR S/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 3. MR MANJUNATH S/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. MRS BHAGYALAKSHMI D/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. MRS GEETANJALI D/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT. NO. 2/1 SAI KRUPA NILAYA T C PALYA ROAD, V B LAYOUT BENGALURU- 560 036. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHANDRA REDDY K V., ADVOCATE, SRI. VISHNU M.S., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.1) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51880 MFA No. 710 of 2025 AND: 1. MUNISWAMY L S/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/O. NO. 368, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, KR PURAM BENGALURU- 560 036. 2. MRS.DHANALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. MR M GAJENDRA S/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4. MRS KAMALAMMA D/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 5. MRS SHYAMALA D/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 6. MRS HEMALATHA D/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 ARE R/AT. NO. 2/1 NEW POLICE STATION ROAD BEHIND GOVT. HOSPITAL, K R PURAM BENGALURU- 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARUN GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, SRI. VIVEK SUBHA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. R. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51880 MFA No. 710 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.05.11.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2570/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendants questioning the order dated 05.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.2570/2022 by the Court of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The said application filed for the grant of temporary injunction was allowed by the trial court, restraining defendants from alienating or creating third party interest over the suit schedule property. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The rank of the parties is retained as per the trial court for the sake of convenience. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51880 MFA No. 710 of 2025 4. The plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance by claiming that the defendants entered into an agreement of sale on 18.07.1995 but they have not executed the sale deed even after issuing notice calling upon them, therefore constrained to file the suit for specific performance. 5. The plaintiff has filed application for temporary injunction which is allowed by the trial court assailing the reasons that the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.63,55,000/- to the defendants, therefore if the defendants are alienate the property, then it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and causes injury to the plaintiff. Therefore granted an order of temporary injunction. 6. Learned counsel for defendants submitted that after 27 years from the date of agreement of sale, the suit is filed. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation, as per article 54 of the Limitation Act. Further, the plaintiff has not placed any material to show that, such huge amount was paid to the defendants and none of the receipts were produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of temporary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51880 MFA No. 710 of 2025 injunction is not correct since the plaintiff has not made out prima facie and balance of convenience for grant of temporary injunction, rather the defendants are facing loss/injury due to order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs submitted that he has paid an amount of Rs.63,55,000/- to the defendants and there were pending litigations regarding the execution of sale deed and soon after the said litigations were settled, then issued the legal notice calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed but they did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit and the Trial Court after considering these aspects by assigning reasons that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience and in case the defendants alienate the property, then the plaintiffs put into loss or injury. Therefore, justified the order passed by the trial court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51880 MFA No. 710 of 2025 8. Upon hearing the submissions made by both the counsels and on perusal of the materials on records, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants demonstrate that the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case so as not to grant an order of temporary injunction? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants demonstrate that the plaintiff has not made out balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as not to grant an order of temporary injunction? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants demonstrate that the plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable loss or injury, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted? (iv) Whether, the order passed by the trial Court requires interference by this Court? 9. The suit is filed for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff has admitted that the defendants are owners of the suit schedule property. As per the pleadings in the plaint, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51880 MFA No. 710 of 2025 the agreement of sale deed was executed on 18.07.1995 for sale consideration of an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre. But the suit is filed on 08.01.2022 after 27 years from the date of execution of agreement of sale. As per article 54 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is 3 years for filing the suit for specific performance of contract. There is no convincing reasons in the plaint by the plaintiff that he has taken 27 years to file the suit. Though, as per the agreement, the sale consideration is stipulated of Rs.6,00,00/- per acre, for the extent of 6.17 guntas, the total amount would be only Rs.36,00,000/-, but it is the case of the plaintiff that he has paid Rs.63,55,000/-, for which there is no proper reasons by the plaintiff for having paid the excess amount to the defendants. 10. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2025 SC 2065 (Civil Appeal No.5200/2025) in case of the Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs B.Gunashekar & Ors, it is held that if any transaction is made in the excess of Rs.2 lakhs, then there shall be a proper account for it, but here in this case, the plaintiff has failed to show his financial capability to pay such huge amount. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51880 MFA No. 710 of 2025 Furthermore, the grant of relief to the decree for specific performance is a discretionary one. Even if the grant of relief of decree is lawful to do so, still the Court has discretion whether to grant or not to grant. But in the present case, the suit is filed on 08.01.2022 after 27 years from the date of agreement of sale. Therefore, this would not be showing prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and balance of convenience so as to grant decree for specific performance. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. 11. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error in granting an order of temporary injunction. The defendants being the owners of the suit schedule land and if the order of temporary injunction is granted, then it will cause more loss and harm to the defendants rather than to the plaintiff. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court is found to be perverse in nature. Accordingly, my answer to point Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51880 MFA No. 710 of 2025 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 05.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.2570/2022 by the Court of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70