Sri Ravi Ranjan Vs Sri Lakshmaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Ravi Ranjan Vs Sri Lakshmaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant Nos.2 and 3 demonstrate that the plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction. +3 more

Court's answer

The General Power of Attorney made on 13.01.2010 is silent whether it was executed for sale consideration or only giving power to make alienation; this difference in the GPA constitutes a prima facie case questioning the title of defendant No.1.

Ratio / Principle

Admittedly the plaintiffs are the owners of the property; when no title was validly conveyed to defendant No.1, the question how defendant No.1 acquired title and competency to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 constitutes a prima facie case on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Key takeaways

The sale deed dated 16.07.2024 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 during the operation of the exparte temporary injunction dated 22.12.2020 is pendent lite, attracting Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, besides constituting a violation of the order of temporary injunction.ratio¶60
Defendant No.1, who was party as defendant No.5 in O.S.No.455/2020 and had knowledge of the operating order of temporary injunction, alienated the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3; prima facie this constitutes an invalid sale.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA No.6913 of 2025 (CPC), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.), decided 18.12.2025 — Appeal by defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 23.08.2025 of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, allowing I.A.No.1 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) restraining them from putting up construction over the suit property in O.S.No.579/2025. The plaintiffs (respondents 1-5) claim absolute ownership by inheritance from Jayamuniyappa and Yellamma and seek declaration that the sale deed dated 16.07.2024 executed by defendant No.1 (respondent 6) is not binding, along with possession and permanent injunction. In the earlier suit O.S.No.455/2020 an exparte injunction dated 22.12.2020 restrained alienation; defendant No.1, arrayed as defendant No.5 therein, nevertheless sold the suit site to defendant Nos.2 and 3 on 16.07.2024 — a pendent lite transfer attracting Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and a violation of the injunction order. The GPA dated 13.01.2010 being silent on sale consideration cast a prima facie doubt on defendant No.1's title; the schedule site was absent from the release order produced by the appellants, and the Town Planning Authority had not released the property for sale. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury (change of nature of land) were held made out; Points (i) to (iv) were answered in the negative and the appeal was dismissed.

NC: 2025:KHC:54370 MFA No. 6913 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6913 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAVI RANJAN S/O BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

SMT. ABHILASHA W/O RAVI RANJAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.84, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, ANUGRAHA LAYOUT, 1^ST PHASE, SANA SUPER MARKET, KODICHIKKANAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE – 560 076

(BY SRI. K S MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANTS

AND:

SRI. LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE JAYAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

SMT. ACHAMMA M D/O LATE JAYAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

SMT.PADMA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54370 MFA No. 6913 of 2025

HC-KAR

D/O LATE JAYAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

SRI.SRINIVAS S/O LATE JAYAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

SMT. NIRMALA D/O LATE JAYAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT SIDIHOSAKOTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 105.

MR. N H PHANI RAJASHEKAR REDDY, S/O N H SHANKAR REDDY, AGED 33 YEARS, R/AT 13-13/11, KM COLONY, KONDAPETA, BANGANAPALLI, MANDALAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518 004.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GANESH S.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; V/O DATED 09.12.2025 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 23.08.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 579/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54370 MFA No. 6913 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 questioning the order dated 23.08.2025 passed by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, in O.S.No.579/2025 on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, thereby, the application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is allowed restraining the defendant Nos.2 and 3 from putting up construction over the suit property.

The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by way of inheritance and also to declare that the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 dated 16.07.2024 is not binding on the plaintiffs and also for possession directing the defendant Nos.2 and 3 to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54370 MFA No. 6913 of 2025

HC-KAR

3. It is the simple case of plaintiffs that one

Jayamuniyappa and Yellamma are the owners of land to the extent of 5 acres in Sy.Nos.9/1 and 9/2 situated at Honnakalasapura Village, Anekal Taluk. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 on the guise of alleged agreement of sale has sold the property to the defendant Nos.2 and 3, but they have not executed the said document. Therefore, by way of inheritance the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit property.

The defendants filed the written statement denying all the averments in the plaint and contended that the plaintiffs have executed the registered agreement of sale dated 15.09.2008 and executed the registered general power of attorney in favour of one Shankar Reddy, who is the father of defendant No.1. In turn, the defendant No.1 had sold the property to defendant Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

he purchased the property through defendant No.1 on 13.09.2018 for valid consideration and in possession of the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:54370 MFA No. 6913 of 2025

HC-KAR

same, but the plaintiffs have filed false suit. Therefore, by placing voluminous documents on record argued that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 have become the owners of the suit schedule property, but the trial court without considering these aspects has passed the order of temporary injunction, which is perverse in nature. Hence, prays interference with the order passed by the trial court.

Having heard the learned counsels for both

parties and on perusal of materials produced before the

court, the following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 demonstrate that the plaintiffs have not made out prima facie case on the basis of materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 demonstrate that the plaintiffs have not made out case of

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54370 MFA No. 6913 of 2025

HC-KAR

balance of convenience on the basis of materials produced before the trial court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction?

(iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted in favour of plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs would not be put into irreparable loss or injury?

(iv) Whether, the impugned order passed by the trial court requires any interference by this Court?

Upon considering the voluminous documents produced by both the parties, earlier the plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S.No.455/2020 against the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and in the said suit the defendant No.1 was defendant No.5. After registration of the said suit, the trial court has granted exparte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. In the meantime, during the operation of the said exparte order of temporary injunction

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:54370 MFA No. 6913 of 2025

HC-KAR

dated 22.12.2020 the defendant No.1 has sold the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 on 16.07.2024. Therefore, the said sale deed made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is pendent lite attracting Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, besides violation of order of temporary injunction.

The learned counsel for the appellant is much relying upon registered agreement of sale and registered general power of attorney, therefore, the plaintiffs are authorised to sell the property. Therefore, the sale deed made by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 is legally valid. But upon considering the General Power of Attorney made on 13.01.2010, the details are silent whether it is executed for sale consideration or only giving power to make alienation. The difference in GPA constitutes prima facie case questioning the title of the defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3 is unable to show that

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:54370 MFA No. 6913 of 2025

HC-KAR

the GPA is executed for the purpose of sale consideration. Also it is argued that mere agreement of sale through registered sale deed does not convey title. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are the owners of the property. Therefore, when there is no title conveyed to defendant No.1 validly, as above stated, then the question is as to how the defendant No.1 acquired title so as to get competency to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. This constitutes prima facie case on behalf of plaintiffs.

When the defendant No.1 is contending that by virtue of GPA given to Ganesh Properties by Jayamuniyappa and Yellamma, the layout and sites were formed but the Town Planning Authority has not released the suit property for sale, but before releasing the said site the defendant No.1 has executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3.

During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:54370 MFA No. 6913 of 2025

HC-KAR

has produced documents regarding releasing of certain sites, but the schedule site is not found in the said release order.

Also upon considering the schedule ‘C’ property in O.S.No.455/2020, the suit schedule site in the present suit is also one of the subject matter in the said suit O.S.No.455/2020 and when during the operation of exparte order of temporary injunction from alienation the defendant No.1 has sold the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 though the defendant No.1 was party as defendant No.5 in O.S.No.455/2020. Therefore, defendant No.1 with having knowledge that there was operation of order of temporary injunction but alienated the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, prima facie it constitutes invalid sale.

The trial court upon consideration all the aspects has found that the plaintiff has prima facie case and balance of convenience and if defendant Nos.2 and 3

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54370 MFA No. 6913 of 2025

HC-KAR

are allowed to change the nature of land, that would cause irreparable loss and injury to plaintiffs. As such the trial court has rightly granted order of temporary injunction, which needs no interference as it is not found to be perverse in nature. Therefore, there is no need to make

any interference in the order of the trial court. Accordingly I answer Point Nos.(i) to (iv) in the negative .

For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed .

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

DR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46