Plaintiff in a specific performance suit appealed rejection of his temporary injunction application against subsequent purchasers. The High Court held the plaintiff lacked diligence, the 2012 sale deed was in his deemed notice, and no prima facie case was made out, dismissing the appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8059 OF 2022 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE YELLAPPA, R/AT.87, CHANDAPURA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 099.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:33904 MFA No. 8059 of 2022
LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, 4TH MAIN, HONGASANDRA, BEGUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 068.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2022 PASSED ON IA.NOS.1 AND 3 IN O.S.NO.597/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DISMISSING I.A.NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, DISPOSING I.A.NO.3 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SEC.151 OF THE CPC, SEEKING VACATING THE EXPARTE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 3 in O.S.No.597/2021 dated 20.10.2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Anekal, the plaintiff is before this Court.
respect of the Schedule Property by receiving the balance sale consideration and on their failure to execute the same, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to execute and Register Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff and to put him in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof;
b. To declare the Sale Deed dated: 13.04.2012, registered as Document No.SRJ-1-00236-201213 of Book I, stored in C.D.No.SRJD 100, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sarjapura and the Sale Deed dated: 31.12.2018, registered as Document No.SRJ-I-04643-2018-19 of Book I, stored in C.D.No.SRJD 270, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi (Sarjapura) as null and void.
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. It is his case that defendant Nos.1 to 14 have agreed to sell the land and they have executed an agreement of sale dated 16.06.2011, whereby it is agreed that the land has to be sold at an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- and as on the date of agreement of sale, the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.40,00,000/- has to be paid at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. As per the agreement of sale, it is the responsibility of the defendants to convert the land. After conversion and completing all the formalities, they have to execute the sale deed. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after payment of an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- on the insistence of the defendants, he had paid another amount of Rs.10,00,000/- at one occasion and another amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on another occasion and again in the month of April 2017 he had paid an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and in the month of June 2019, when the defendants have approached him, he paid another amount of Rs.4,50,000/- on 24.06.2019 by way of cash and defendant Nos.1 to 14 have acknowledged the receipt of payment. Even after lapse of a decade, when the defendants have not converted the land or intimate it to him, in
the month of April 2021, the plaintiff approached few of the defendant Nos.1 to 14 and demanded to get the sale deed executed and registered in his name by performing the obligation casted upon them. It is his case that the defendants have avoided him, despite having received 75% of the total sale consideration. Thereafter, on further enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 14 have executed a sale deed and registered in favour of defendant Nos.15 on 13.04.2012. Then, defendant No.15 had sold in favour of defendant No.16 by registered sale deed dated 31.12.2018. Immediately, after coming to know about the same, the plaintiff had obtained the documents and he has also issued a legal notice on 05.07.2021 to defendant Nos.1 to 14 as well as defendant Nos.15 and 16. When there was no response from either of the parties, he had come to the Court and filed this application. Initially, when the suit is filed, he had sought for injunction and the Trial Court had granted an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties.
after purchasing the property in the year 2018 from defendant No.15, he was developing the property and already the constructions have come out. Though the sale deeds are being executed in favour of defendant No.15 in the year 2012, the plaintiff had kept quite till the year 2021 and he is not entitled for the relief. The Trial Court by impugned order had dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. While dismissing the said application, the Trial Court had observed that the agreement of sale executed in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of defendant No.1 to 14, whereas the sale deed that is executed in favour of defendant No.15 is by 62 persons. The Trial Court had observed that the plaintiff had sought an order of equity restraining defendant Nos.15 and 16 from alienating and also restraining defendant No.15 and 16 from encumbering the suit property. The facts of the case make out that the plaintiff said to be the agreement holder has kept quite long time and inactiveness of the plaintiff should not put the others in disadvantages position without their fault. The plaintiff had filed I.A.No.5 seeking to implead the proposed defendant Nos.18 to 65 contending that defendant No.15 and 16 have already entered into various agreements and conveyances with the
proposed defendants and as such they are the necessary parties to the suit. So, in these circumstances, if the order as sought by the plaintiff is granted, certainly defendant Nos.15 and 16 would suffer irreparable injury. Therefore, the Trial Court felt that the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case in order to seek order of temporary injunction. The Trial Court had observed that in the absence of prima facie case, the balance of convenience and relative hardship are only imaginary. Accordingly, the Trial Court had dismissed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC and I.A.No.3 filed by the defendant Nos.15 and 16 seeking to vacate the exparte order of temporary injunction is disposed off. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this Court. On 10.11.2023, an order is passed by a Coordinate bench of this Court not to alienate the suit schedule property till the next date of hearing.
not the essence of the contract and there is nothing from the plaintiff side to be complied with. It is for the defendants to convert the land. Whenever he approached them orally, it is stated that they sought for time for converting the land as such he is waiting for the said conversion to be done by defendant Nos.1 to 14. He submits that even as of now as per the revenue records, these lands are shown as agricultural lands. Even till today, they are not converted. When once as per the agreement the lands are not converted, there was no occasion to say that there are lapses on the part of the plaintiff in seeking the relief of specific performance. When the plaintiff had paid substantial amounts and at this point of time, if defendant Nos.15 and 16 further sell the properties in favour of
third parties and create third party rights, it would cause lot of hardship. By placing the agreement of sale and the amounts that are paid, the plaintiff has shown that he has a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in his favour. Unless and until the injunction is granted, he will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. This aspect was not appreciated by the Trial Court. He submits that as there is an order not to alienate that is subsisting from the year 2023 in his favour, in view of the
NC: 2024:KHC:33904 MFA No. 8059 of 2022
orders passed by this Court, the same may be continued whether the conversion is done or not and all those disputed questions can be decided by the Court after a full fledged trial.
Bina Murlidhar Hemdev Vs. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev1 . He has drawn the attention of the Court to para Nos.40 and 41 where the Court in detail has discussed about the person who is deemed to have notice which reads as follows:
“40. Now the rectification deed is a registered document. The agreement by Sankhalas with the builder dated 16-7-1994 and it specifically refers to the deed of rectification (dated 18-6-1992). The Jains’ agreement of sale dated 19-8-1994 with the builder no doubt omits to refer to the rectification
1 (1999) 5 SCC 222
deed and says that there are only some “claims” of the Lokrams. But the Sankhalas were obviously more truthful. Now if the agreement of Sankhalas had put the builder on notice of the rectification deed specifically, as stated earlier, it is prima facie clear that the builder had actual notice and was obliged to inquire into its details. Thus there is actual notice. There is also constructive notice inasmuch as the rectification deed is a registered deed and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act comes into play.
41. Under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, "a person is deemed to have notice:" of a fact when he actually know that fact or when, but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. Explanation I thereto says :
"Explanation I. - Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or shares or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration..."
He has also relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Niwas Vs. Bano and others2 .
2 (2000) 6 SCC 685
NC: 2024:KHC:33904 MFA No. 8059 of 2022
3. Section 19 provides the categories of persons against whom specific performance of a contract may be enforced. Among them is included, under clause (b), any transferee claiming under the vendor by a title arising subsequently to the contract of which specific performance is sought. However, a transferee for value, who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract, is excluded from the purview of the said clause. To fall within the excluded class, a transferee must show that :
4. The said provision is based on the principle of English law which fixes priority between a legal right and an equitable right. If A purchases any property from B and thereafter B sells the same to C, the sale in favour of A, being prior in time, prevails over the sale in favour of C as both A and C acquired legal rights. But where one is a legal right and the other is an equitable right
“a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration who obtains a legal estate at the time of his purchase without notice of a prior equitable right is entitled to priority in equity as well as at law”.
This principle is embodied in Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act.
5. It may be noted here that “notice” may be (i) actual, (ii) constructive or (iii) imputed.
6. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act defines, inter alia, “a person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which
NC: 2024:KHC:33904 MFA No. 8059 of 2022
he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it.”
And Explanation II appended to this definition clause says :
“Any person acquiring any immovable property or any share or interest in any such property shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if any, of any person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof.”
18. Both the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court dealt with the question whether the purchasers had actual knowledge of Ext.1, the earlier contract, and on evidence found that the purchasers did not have any knowledge of it. But they failed to notice the provisions of Explanation II to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act which is germane on the point of notice. Indeed, issue No.10 was not properly framed. The word notice should have been used in issue No.10 instead of knowledge because Section 19(b) uses the word notice. From the definition of the expression, a person is said to have notice in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is plain that the word notice is of wider import than the word knowledge. A person may not have actual knowledge of a fact but he may have notice of it having regard to the aforementioned definition and Explanation II thereto. If the purchasers have relied upon the assertion of the vendor or on their own knowledge and abstained from making enquiry into the real nature of the possession of the tenant, they cannot escape from the consequences of the deemed notice under Explanation II to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. On this point, in the light of the above discussion, we hold that the purchasers will be deemed to have notice of Ext.1, should it be found to be true and valid.
forth before this Court that he is not aware of the said transaction of the year 2012. It is also submitted that there is no assertion in the plaint about all these aspects, just it is stated that he came to know in the year 2020. It is submitted that the lands were converted on 16.01.2012 in ALN(A)(S)SR98/2011-12 at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District and after the said land was converted, the respondent/defendant No.16 had purchased the properties way back in the year 2018 and they have started the construction and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that even till today the conversion is not done is baseless.
any relief from the Court and all the issues that are put forth before this Court have to be decided by the Court. It is also submitted that he has sought for cancellation of the sale deeds and the Court fees that is paid is for the agreement of sale and for the said cancellation he had not paid the Court fees. Further, it is submitted that even whether the cancellation of the sale deeds is within the limitation or not, for that also nothing has been pleaded in the plaint and the plaint is silent and all these aspects he suppressed before the Trial Court and the Trial Court had rightly rejected the application filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction. In view of the interim orders passed by this Court, defendant No.16 that is respondent No.2 herein is put to hardship and as such the interim order granted by this Court needs to be vacated and the order of the Trial Court has to be affirmed.
NC: 2024:KHC:33904 MFA No. 8059 of 2022
balance of convenience and the hardship. Now, it is the case of the plaintiff that there is no conversion till now. Defendant No.16 is referring to the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in the year 2012. He states that the conversion was done long back. The stand of the plaintiff with regard to the non-conversion of the land is not supported by any document except saying that the revenue records are still showing that it is not converted. The case of defendant is that they have constructed after the conversion is done in the year 2012. Further, with regard to the deemed notice of the sale deed which is of the Year 2012, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff to grant injunction. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex, the sale deed of the year 2012 that is executed in favour of defendant No.15 is in the deemed notice of the plaintiff. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court had rightly observed that the balance of convenience is more in favour of defendant Nos.15 to 16 who are in possession of the property right from the year 2012 and who have purchased the property in the year 2012 and in the year 2018, if injunction is granted, it would cause hardship to the defendants. In that
NC: 2024:KHC:33904 MFA No. 8059 of 2022
view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following,
ORDER
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
BN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff agreement-holder made out a prima facie case for temporary injunction against subsequent purchasers of the suit property.
Whether the 2012 registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.15 was within the plaintiff's deemed notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bina Murlidhar Hemdev Vs. Kanhaiyalal Lokram HemdevRelied on¶86
(1999) 5 SCC 222 · Who else cites this
Ram Niwas Vs. Bano and othersRelied on¶86
(2000) 6 SCC 685 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Krishna Murthy
M/s Prabhavathi Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd
Mr H.C. Narayana Reddy
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
