M/S. Sree Sai Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri R Venkatesh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S. Sree Sai Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri R Venkatesh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. Both appeals (MFA Nos.1349 and 1354 of 2025) dismissed; the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 dismissing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 (interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC) in O.S.No.1078/2019 is confirmed; no injunction granted to the plaintiff.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, having regard to the suit's framing vis-a-vis the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 and the plaintiff's pleaded lack of possession. +1 more

Court's answer

The entire framing of the suit touches upon the provisions of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988, and a prima facie case must be made out as per law and not opposing the law.

Ratio / Principle

Since the entire suit may be in the context of the provisions of the Benami Transactions Act, the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case.

Key takeaways

From the very pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not in possession of the property; being unable to make out a prima facie case, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court, which is correct.ratio¶73
At the most, if there is any violation of the terms of the agreement dated 22.11.1996, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for recovery of the amount paid; the reasons given by the trial Court are correct and proper and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.ratio¶74
The observations made above are only for considering the instant appeals; the trial court shall not be influenced by them while considering the suit on merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim injunction denied - plaintiff developer company sought restraint of defendants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC in O.S.1078/2019 (II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal), relying on an agreement dated 22.11.1996 with defendant No.1 (its Director) that lands purchased in the latter's name with the plaintiff's funds would be transferred back as formed sites; suit filed only in 2019. Trial Court rejected I.A.Nos.1 and 2 citing delay and failure to prove possession/prima facie case. Held (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.), dismissing MFA Nos.1349 and 1354 of 2025 filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC and confirming the order dated 05.02.2025: the suit's entire framing touches the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 and a prima facie case must be made out as per law, not opposing it; on the plaintiff's own pleadings it is not in possession of the property; at most, for breach of the 1996 agreement the remedy was a suit for recovery of the amount paid; observations confined to the appeals and not to influence the trial court on merits.

NC: 2025:KHC:10338 MFA No. 1349 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1349 OF 2025 (CPC)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1354 OF 2025

IN MFA No. 1349/2025

BETWEEN:

M/S. SREE SAI LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.8, CORPORATION MARK, SUSHEELA ROAD, MAVALLI, BENGALURU - 560 004.

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. B. R. DWARAKANATH

APPELLANT

Digitally signed by RAMYA D

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. R. VENKATESH S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA SHETTY, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT PENT HOUSE, 7 HILLS, SOHAN TOWERS, NO. 41/1, 30^TH CROSS, SBI BANK BUILDING, 7^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 004.

MR. C. PRASANNA S/O MR. A. CHENNAIAH,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10338 MFA No. 1349 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025

AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1063, 8^TH B CROSS ROAD, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, GIRINAGAR, 2^ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 085.

MR. B.R. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O SRI. B. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT NO. P 2, 4^TH FLOOR, 34^TH CROSS, 14^TH MAIN ROAD. 1781 DEVAGIRI MEADOWS, KADARENAHALLI PARK, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.

MR. T.V.T.PRAKASH S/O MR.H. VEERANNA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1132, 18^TH CROSS ROAD, 24^TH MAIN ROAD, BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.

SRI. K.L. VENKATESH BABU S/O SRI. K.V. LAKSHMINARYA SETTY, AGED 61 YEARS, GENERAL MERCHANTS, BAZAR ROAD, CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.

DR. SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA S/O SRI. RAMA SHARMA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 7, VIVEKANANDA STREET, UDAY NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 016.

SRI. B. NARENDRA BABU, S/O SRI. BASAPPA, AGED 41 YEARS,

- 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10338 MFA No. 1349 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025

R/AT NO. 57/2, BUKKASAGARA VILLAGE, BANNERAGHATTA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 083.

SRI. B. V. RAMAMURTHY S/O SRI. B. VENKATASWAMY, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 453/9, 40^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010

SRI. K.R. VISHWANATH GUPTA S/O LATE. K. RAMACHANDRA GUPTA, AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT NO. 23, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021

SRI. N. UDAYKUMAR S/O SRI. NAGA MANICKAM CHETTIAR, AGED 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 257, BAZAR STREET, HARUR, CHARMAPURI (D) TAMIL NADU – 636 903.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHANANJAYJOSHI SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. NAVEED AHMED ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS MFA FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 05.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S. NO. 1078/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DISMISSING IA NO.2 FILED U/O. 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10338 MFA No. 1349 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025

IN MFA NO. 1354/2025

BETWEEN:

M/S. SREE SAI LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.8, CORPORATION MARK, SUSHEELA ROAD, MAVALLI, BENGALURU - 560 004.

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. B. R. DWARAKANATH

APPELLANT

(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. R. VENKATESH S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA SHETTY, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT PENT HOUSE, 7 HILLS, SOHAN TOWERS, NO. 41/1, 30^TH CROSS, SBI BANK BUILDING, 7^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 004.

MR. C. PRASANNA S/O MR. A. CHENNAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1063, 8^TH B CROSS ROAD, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, GIRINAGAR, 2^ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 085.

MR. B.R. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O SRI. B. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT NO. P 2, 4^TH FLOOR, 34^TH CROSS, 14^TH MAIN ROAD.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10338 MFA No. 1349 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025

1781 DEVAGIRI MEADOWS, KADARENAHALLI PARK, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.

MR. T.V.T.PRAKASH S/O MR.H. VEERANNA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1132, 18^TH CROSS ROAD, 24^TH MAIN ROAD, BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.

SRI. K.L. VENKATESH BABU S/O SRI. K.V. LAKSHMINARYA SETTY, AGED 61 YEARS, GENERAL MERCHANTS, BAZAR ROAD, CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.

DR. SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA S/O SRI. RAMA SHARMA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 7, VIVEKANANDA STREET, UDAY NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 016.

SRI. B. NARENDRA BABU, S/O SRI. BASAPPA, AGED 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 57/2, BUKKASAGARA VILLAGE, BANNERAGHATTA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 083.

SRI. B. V. RAMAMURTHY S/O SRI. B. VENKATASWAMY, AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 453/9, 40^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10338 MFA No. 1349 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025

SRI. K.R. VISHWANATH GUPTA S/O LATE. K. RAMACHANDRA GUPTA, AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT NO. 23, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION, SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021

SRI. N. UDAYKUMAR S/O SRI. NAGA MANICKAM CHETTIAR, AGED 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. 257, BAZAR STREET, HARUR, CHARMAPURI (D) TAMIL NADU – 636 903.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHANANJAYJOSHI SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. NAVEED AHMED ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 1078/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

These two appeals are filed by the plaintiff being

aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10338 MFA No. 1349 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025

in OS.No.1078/2019 dated 05.02.2025 on the file of II

Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal.

The rank of the parties is referred to as per

their rankings before the trial Court.

It is the case of the plaintiff that, defendant No.1 is the Director of plaintiff’s Company. There was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 dated 22.11.1996 that the lands are purchased in the name of defendant No.1, but money was paid by the plaintiff and thereafter, getting conversion of land and after formation of sites, agreed to transfer sites in favour of plaintiff’s Company. But thereafter, defendant No.1 had refused to transfer sites/lands in favour of the plaintiff resulting into filing of suit by the plaintiff seeking declaration and permanent injunction.

The plaintiff had filed the above said I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC praying to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10338 MFA No. 1349 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025

property and not to allow the lands/sites to be transferred in favour of third parties, but the said applications were rejected by the trial Court, on the reason that, though, the agreement is dated 22.11.1996, but the suit is filed in the year 2019, therefore, there is delay. Furthermore, by the very claim that the plaintiff has failed to prove possession over the land, therefore, dismissed the said applications as the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case.

Upon considering the filing of suit as per the plaint averments produced along with the appeal, the entire framing of suit is touching upon the provisions of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988. Making out of prima facie should be always as per law, but not opposing the law. The mutual agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is according to their mutual understanding. Therefore, when the entire suit may be in the context of provisions of Benami Transactions Act,

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10338 MFA No. 1349 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025

therefore, the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case.

Furthermore, from the very pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. Therefore, when the plaintiff is not able to make out a prima facie case, therefore, there is no need to make interference in the order passed by the trial Court and that the order passed by the trial court is correct.

At the most, if there is any violation of terms of agreement dated 22.11.1996, then the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for recovery of amount paid. Therefore, the reasons given by the trial Court are correct and proper. Hence, there is no need to make interference in the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, appeals are liable to be dismissed. However, the trail court shall not be influenced by the observations made above while

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10338 MFA No. 1349 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025

considering the suit on merits. The observations made above are only for considering the instant appeals.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following

(i) The appeals are dismissed .

(ii) The impugned order dated 05.02.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in OS.No.1078/2019 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, is hereby confirmed.

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48