Tanvi Asset Holdings LLP Vs Mr. C. Narayanappa

TANVI ASSET HOLDINGS LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT 2^ND FLOOR COMMERCIAL BLOCK WILSASA GRAND VILLAMENTS 12^TH KM, KANAKAPURA ROAD KONANAKUNTE CROSS DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 062 REP BY ITS PARTNER MR. CHETAN G R …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. HITTINHALLI VARSHA DILIP., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MR. C. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE C JAVARAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MRS. Y A SUJATHA W/O C NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶15

MS. RAMYA SAI N D/O C NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER MR. C. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE C JAVARAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶16

MR. N GAGAN SAI S/O C NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42192 WP No. 23973 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT NO.27 10^TH MAIN, 5^TH A CROSS BSK 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 050

¶20

ONE EARTH ECO HOMES PVT LTD. NO.72, 3RD CROSS, 8TH MAIN BAGEGOWDA LAYOUT, RAGHUVANAHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 109 COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 REP BY ITS DIRECTORS MR. S UMESH S/O LATE G C SAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS MR. BASAVARAJU T. S/O THAGADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶21

MR. RATAN KUMAR KANDOI S/O NATHAL KANDOI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS DIRECTOR OF RASHI GRANITE EXPORT PVT LTD. R/AT FLAT NO.401, 4^TH FLOOR PENINSULA HEIGHTS, 2^ND PHASE 17^TH MAIN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 078

¶22

MR. MANJUNATH S. S/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT CHURCH ROAD KANAKAPURA TOWN AND TALUK RAMANAGAR – 562 117 …RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-(A) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 TO THE EXTENT OF NOT CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION I.A. NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN COM.O.S.NO.3/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42192 WP No. 23973 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGAR FOR GRANT OF EX-PARTE INJUNCTION VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

¶32

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are

¶33

defendants before the Trial Court.

¶34

The parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶35

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking following reliefs:

¶36

“(a) Pass a decree of permanent injuction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, administrators, assignees etc., or any persons claiming through or under them from alienating or creating any third-party interest in respect of the Suit Schedule Property in favour of any person other than the plaintiff herein; (b) Declare that the Agreement to Sell dated 31.05.2025 registered on 09.06.2025 as Document No.KNK-1-03903-2025-26, Book-1, stored in electronic format in Centralized Data Centre registered before the office of Sub-

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:42192 WP No. 23973 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Registrar, Ramanagara (Kanakapura) is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

¶41

(c) Pass a decree directing the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to refund a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Lakhs only) received by the defendants with interest at 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the payment till realization to the plaintiff;

¶42

(d) Pass a Decree directing the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to pay the plaintiff INR.50,00,000/(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) being the damages for the breach of the contract;

¶43

(e) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity including the cost of this suit.”

¶44

Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application in

¶45

IA.No.III under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction by restraining the

¶46

defendants, their men, servants, agents, administrators, assignees etc., or any persons claiming through or under them from alienating, mortgaging or creating any third party interest in respect of the schedule property.

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42192 WP No. 23973 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

On perusal of the materials placed before the trial Court, the trial Court came to the conclusion that it is not proper to grant an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction as prayed in IA.No.III without notice to the defendants and without providing an opportunity to the defendants. Therefore, the trial Court issued suit summons to all the defendants and also issued emergent notice on I.A.No.III.

¶50

The plaintiff has brought to the notice of this Court that they have paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the defendants as advance in respect of agricultural kushki land bearing Sy.No.159 measuring 5 acres 13 guntas, Sy.No.160 measruing 4 acres 31 guntas and Sy.No.161 measuring 2 acres 27 guntas of Goduru Village, Maralavadi Hobli, Harohalli Taluk, Ramanagara District. It is also stated that the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- as per Annexure-D, which is the receipt in dispute.

¶51

When such being the case, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. However,

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:42192 WP No. 23973 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

the trial Court has not passed any order except issuance of

¶56

notice to the defendants.

¶57

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits

¶58

that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the land owners of the suit schedule property in question. He submits that, primarily the suit itself is not maintainable and the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for the reason that the plaintiff has not filed any documents i.e. agreement of sale to have privity of contract between itself and defendant Nos.1 to 4. He contends that the receipt of the amount does not relate to the sale of the suit schedule property. This Court does not want to delve into this issue of payment whether made or not. Nevertheless, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration that the agreement of sale deed dated 31.05.2025 to be not valid and in the alternative to direct the defendants to refund payment of sum of Rs.75,00,000/- along with interest 18%. In the circumstances, the trial Court ought to have passed an order on this application rather than issuing of emergent notice and suit summons to the defendants.

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:42192 WP No. 23973 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules

¶63

1 and 2 of CPC, it becomes the duty and obligation of the trial Court to decide the said application on merits by considering the essential requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused.

¶64

This Court, in its order dated 11.08.2025, has granted

¶65

an order of status quo to be maintained in respect of the suit schedule property. The same is continued till date. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to continue the order of status quo by leaving open all the contentions to be urged before the trial Court and both the plaintiff and the defendants

¶66

to argue the matter on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Till such time, in the interest of both the parties, it would be appropriate direct them to continue the order of status quo . Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. The petition is disposed of;

¶69

ii. The respondents-defendants shall maintain the order of status quo in respect of the suit schedule

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42192 WP No. 23973 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

property in question till the application before the

¶73

trial Court is decided;

¶74

iii. The respondents-defendants is at liberty to file objections to the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC;

¶75

iv. The trial Court shall dispose of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶76

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶77

NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Tanvi Asset Holdings LLP v. Mr. C. Narayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanvi Asset Holdings LLP v. Mr. C. Narayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.P.R.Kumar Vs P.R.Nandish

Smt v Koushlya Vs Shri v Keshavamurthy

Smt Sharadamma Gurubasappa Vs Sri Suresh G

Mr.Nithin Gerald Sequeira Vs Mr.Edward Peter Tauro

Sri Sampangiramaiah Vs Sri N Ramesh

Smt Shashikala v P R Vs Smt Sharadhamma