- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15556 MFA No. 8307 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8307 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. B PUSHPALATHA V PRASAD W/O SRI. B S VAGESH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 2. SMT. B SHIKA V PRASAD, D/O SRI. B S VAGESH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO.1736, 12TH MAIN, 31ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 070. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PANINI A H.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. H N BALANARASIMHA S/O LATE NARAYANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O HERINDYAPANAYHALLI VILLAGE, KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPUARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562159. …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.19/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA, ALLOWING THE Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15556 MFA No. 8307 of 2024 I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the defendants calling in question the order dated 03.09.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.19/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kanakapura (for short ‘the trial Court), whereby the application i.e., I.A.No.1 filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties has been allowed and the application i.e., I.A.No.2 filed by the appellants/defendants under Order XXXIX Rules 3 and 4 of the CPC seeking vacating of the order of ex-parte temporary injunction has been rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15556 MFA No. 8307 of 2024 Brief facts: 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.19/2024 seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.09.2023 in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants agreed to sell the properties for total consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- was paid as advance and the balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- remained unpayable. The plaintiff claims readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. 3. On the other hand, the defendants contend that the said transaction is not a sale agreement but a loan transaction, and an agreement of sale was executed only as a security for repayment of the loan amount. In the said suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties, which came to be allowed and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15556 MFA No. 8307 of 2024 the appellants’/defendants' application to vacate the same came to be rejected, which leading to the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the trial Court is erroneous and contrary to law. It is contended that the transaction between the parties is purely a loan transaction and not an agreement of sale and the document dated 19.09.2023 was executed only as a security. 5. It is further contended that the market value of the suit schedule properties is more than Rs.14,00,00,000/- and no prudent person would agree to sell the same for Rs.2,00,00,000/-, which itself probalises the case of the appellants. It is contended that the trial Court failed to consider the absence of consensus ad-idem and has erroneously granted injunction without there being a prima-facie case. It is contended that the plaintiff has not established irreparable injury or balance of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15556 MFA No. 8307 of 2024 convenience and the trial Court has granted injunction mechanically without proper appreciation of facts and settled principles governing grant of temporary injunctions. Hence, the present appellants sought to set aside the impugned order. 6. This Court has carefully considered the contention and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The trial Court upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record has held that the plaintiff has made out a prima-facie case. It is further held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and if injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury. The trial Court has observed that the execution of an agreement of sale and receipt of Rs.1,80,00,000/- is not seriously disputed and the nature of the transaction - whether it is a sale or a loan requires full-fledged trial. In order to preserve the subject matter of the suit and to avoid creation of third party rights, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15556 MFA No. 8307 of 2024 trial Court granted temporary injunction and rejected the application filed by the defendants to vacate the same. 8. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the defendants are owners of the suit schedule properties and that a document filed as an agreement of sale dated 19.09.2023 has been executed under which, a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- has been admittedly received. The core issue between the parties is with regard to the nature of the said transaction namely; whether it is an agreement of sale or a document executed as a security for loan. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at an interlocutory stage and necessarily would require full-fledged trial or appreciation of evidence. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine the following: (i) whether the plaintiff has made out a prima-facie case? (ii) whether the balance of convenience lies in his favour? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15556 MFA No. 8307 of 2024 (iii) whether irreparable injury would be caused, if injunction is refused. 9. In the present case, the trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has established a prima-facie case, particularly in view of the admitted execution of the document and receipt of substantial consideration. Further, if the defendants are permitted to alienate the suit schedule properties during the pendency of the suit, it would result in creation of third party and multiplicity of proceedings and thereby, caused irreparable injury to the petitioner. 10. The contention of the appellants that the transaction is a loan and not a sale is a matter to be established before trial and cannot be a ground to deny interim protection at this stage. The trial Court has exercised its discretion judicially and in accordance with settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15556 MFA No. 8307 of 2024 order warranting any interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal stands dismissed. ii. The order dated 03.09.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.19/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kanakapura is hereby confirmed. iii. It is made clear that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of the interlocutory application and shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the suit on its merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23