- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7071 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. GOPALAPPA, S/O LATE VANARASI YELLANA BHOVI, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. CHOWDAMMA, W/O GOPALLAPPA, AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. YELLAMMA, D/O GOPALAPPA, AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, 4. SUBBAMMA, D/O GOPALAPPA, AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS, 5. YELLAPPA, S/O GOPALAPPA, AGE ABOT 32 YEARS, 6. NARAYANAMMA, D/O GOPALAPPA, AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, 7. CHOWDAMMA, D/O GOPALAPPA, AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS, 8. YESHWANTH, S/O GOPALAPPA, AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 9. ABBAYAPPA, S/O GOPALAPPA, AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL RESIDING AT R/T MUTHURAYASWAMY DHODDI, HAMLET OF MAHANTHALINGAPURA, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKALTALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KUMARA KG.,ADVOCATE) AND: V NAGARAJ, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 1. PREMA, W/O LATE V NAGARAJ, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. YASHASWINI, D/O LATE V NAGARAJ, AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS, 3. RAHUL, S/O LATE V NAGARAJ, AGE ABOUT 19 YEARS, 4. JAYASHREE, D/O LATE V NAGARAJ, AGE ABOUT 17 YEARS, ALL RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT GIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBALI, ANEKAL TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA K.V.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.12.08.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 IN O.S.NO. 567/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ANEKAL, REJECTING THE IA.NO.6 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC,. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs assailing the order on IA.No.6 dated 12.08.2025 passed in OS.No.567/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (for short 'the Trial Court'), whereby the Trial Court rejected the application IA.No.6 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) from alienating or creating any third party rights over the suit schedule property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 03.04.2013, GPA and sale agreement in favour of the defendants are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody claiming though them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. 3. The defendants filed the written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments. 4. The plaintiffs filed application IA.No.6 seeking grant of an order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) from alienating, mortgaging, raising or creating any encumbrance over the suit schedule property. The defendants filed objections to the said application. 5. The Trial Court considering the material on record rejected IA.No.6. Aggrieved by which the plaintiffs are before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, no agreement or valid sale transaction was executed either by the appellants or by Smt. Akkayamma,, under which the defendants contend to have purchased the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the plaintiffs apprehended that the defendants would alienate and create third party rights and submits that rejection of injunction would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. It is contended that the Trial Court has failed to properly consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable loss that would be caused to the plaintiff on non-refusal of injunction and that the order suffers from perversity. It is submitted that the earlier original defendant had filed application seeking an order of injunction, directing the plaintiffs not to alienate the property, which came to be rejected and the said order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 has remained unchallenged and after the legal representative coming on record, the present application is filed. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants sought to justify the order passed by the Trial Court and submits that, the plaintiffs have failed to establish prima facie case to show that the sale deed in favour of the defendants was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the valid relationship with the original owner. It is further submitted that the sale transaction was paid through bank transactions and the revenue records stand in the defendants’ name. it is further argued that non-registration of GPA alone does not invalidate the same and the Trial Court has rightly held that no prima facie case is made out for injunction. 9. This Court has carefully considered the contentions and perused the materials placed on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 10. The point that arises for consideration is, "whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court on IA.No.6 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC warrants interference by this Court?" 11. When an application for temporary injunction is to be considered, the Court must be satisfied of three ingredients. i. prima facie case, ii. balance of convenience iii. irreparable loss. 12. The Trial Court while rejecting the application observed at paragraph No.14 as under: "14. It is important to note that earlier Smt. Akkayamma had alienated the suit schedule property in favour of one Byrappa. The said Byrappa alienated the same in favour of one Byanna, The said Byanna again alienated the same in favour of Mohammad Affzar. All the above sale deeds were declared as null and void under PTCL Act. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 Subsequently the plaintiffs have alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. The said sale deed is challenged by the plaintiffs on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The defendant has produced bank statement to show that the sale consideration was paid through the bank account of the defendant. On perusal of the bank statement, prima-facie it shows that the defendant has paid sale consideration through his account to the mother of the plaintiff Smt. Akkayamma. All the transactions were made through account pay. Under such circumstances, there is no prima-facie material to show that the defendant has obtained the sale deed fraudulently. The plaintiffs have failed to place prima-facie materials to show that the said sale deed of the defendant was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. On the other hand, the documents placed by the defendants prima-facie shows that the plaintiffs along with Akkayamma have alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant and based on the said sale deed, the revenue records were transferred in favour of the defendant. The present record of right stands in the name of defendant. Registration of GPA U/Sec.31 & 32 of Registration Act is not compulsory in all the circumstances. The sale deed executed through the unregistered GPA cannot be held invalid - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 only on the ground of non-registration of GPA. Therefore the contention of the plaintiffs regarding non-registration of GPA cannot be a ground to ignore the sale deed of the defendant at this stage. The recitals of the said sale deed, prima-facie shows that the possession of the suit schedule property is handed over to the defendant and the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs have failed to make out prima-facie of case, the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant and the defendant will suffer irreparable injury, if temporary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in the negative, point Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly." 13. In the present case, it is noticed that the Trial Court has proceeded to examine the merits of the case in detail while considering the application for temporary injunction, particularly with regard to the validity of the sale transaction and payment of consideration. Such an approach is impermissible at the stage of interlocutory relief, as the question relating to validity of sale deed, including the effect of unregistered GPA, is a matter to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 adjudicated upon after a full fledged trial. It is well settled principles as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Wander Ltd., Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.1 (Wander Ltd.), and Dalpat Kumar and Anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh and Ors2 (Dalpat Kumar) while considering an appeal against an order granting or refusing temporary injunction, the appellate Court would not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court unless such discretion is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or where the Court has ignored settled principles governing grant of injunction. 14. As stated supra, the Trial Court proceeded to record finding on merits, particularly with regard to the validity of the sale deed and payment of consideration, instead of confining itself to a prima facie examination. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the dispute with regard to the validity of the sale transaction, including the effect of an unregistered GPA, and allegations of fraud, 1 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 2 (1992) 1 SCC 719 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 are matters that required full fledged trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of considering temporary injunction. 15. This Court finds that the plaintiffs have raised substantial and triable issues, thereby establishing a prima facie case. Further, if the defendants are permitted to alienate the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit, it would not only result in creation of third party rights, but also leads to multiplicity of proceedings, causing irreparable injury to the plaintiffs and thus the balance of convenience lies in granting injunction to the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER. i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. ii) The order dated 12.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.6 in OS.No.567/2016 by the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14578 MFA No. 7071 of 2025 Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs is hereby set aside. iii) IA.No.6 is allowed, the defendants are restrained by way of a temporary injunction from alienating or creating third party rights in respect of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. iv) The suit is of the year 2016. It is needless to say that the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32