Appeals against rejection of temporary injunction applications in a title suit involving a power of attorney, sale agreement, and gift deed. The High Court directed respondents not to alienate the property or claim equity from ongoing construction pending the suit, and disposed of both appeals with directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:41814 MFA No. 5402 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5403 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5402 OF 2024 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5403 OF 2024 (CPC)
IN MFA No.5402/2024:
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.519, MAHALAKSHMI NILAYAM, YELAPPA LAYOUT, BESIDE CHALLAGHATTA, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560 060.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARUNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI AJAY T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.1052/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RUAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, C/ch. I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REJECTING IA NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
IN MFA NO.5403/2024:
BETWEEN:
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.519, MAHALAKSHMI NILAYAM, YELAPPA LAYOUT, BESIDE CHALLAGHATTA, KENGERI, BENGALURU 560 060.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARUNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY T, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.1052/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, REJECTING IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
nature of the property and another application is filed not
to alienate the same and both the I.As. are rejected.
that already they have put up the construction and the same is in final stage.
alienate the property during the pendency of the suit, since there is a dispute with regard to the very title between the parties and the plaintiff claims that defendant No.1 executed the registered power of attorney as well as the sale agreement. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that no such power of attorney was executed and the same is obtained fraudulently. These are the issues to be considered by the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits whether they have executed the general power of attorney or not and whether the entire sale consideration has been received or not and whether the interest has been transferred by receiving the entire sale consideration and power of attorney is coupled with interest. In view of the construction made by the respondents, the respondents cannot claim any equity and the respondents are directed not to alienate or create any third party right during the pendency of the suit.
disposed of. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a time bound period of 18 months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order, since the suit is of the year 2024. Both the appellant and the respondents and their respective learned counsel are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within the time bound period of 18 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. The respective learned counsel are directed to furnish the copy of this order to the Trial Court,
forthwith.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interim orders should restrain respondents from alienating the suit property and claiming equity in construction during pendency of the title suit.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Umashankar B.
S. Arumugam
A. Santhosh
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
