Smt Nalini Sushma M S Vs Mohammed Khadir Ur Rahman

BOTH R/AT NO.204, ‘B’ BLOCK, ELEGANT PRIDE APARTMENT, 4^TH CROSS, TELECOM LAYOUT, NEXT TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, SRIRAMPURA, JAKKUR P.O., BENGALURU-560 064.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI KRISHNAMURTHY M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MOHAMMED KHADIR UR RAHMAN S/O MOHAMMED ZABI UR RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.408, COMER RIDGE GKS, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶18

PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.946, AMMAVARAPETE, KALAYIPETE, KOLAR-563 101.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15930 MFA No. 1904 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. USHA MANOJ KUMAR @ USHA K.G. W/O MANOJ KUMAR,

¶22

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶23

MANOJ KUMAR G.S. S/O LATE SHIVAJI RAO G.H. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶24

RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 ARE R/AT NO.109, DEEKSHA, 5^TH CROSS, BEHIND GKW LAYOUT BUS STAND, HBCS LAYOUT, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI NAGARAJA R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.I IN O.S.NO.25106/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-22), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

The present miscellaneous first appeal is preferred by

¶32

defendant Nos.3 and 4 calling in question the order dated 13.02.2026 passed on I.A. No.1 in O.S. No.25106/2026 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-22) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15930 MFA No. 1904 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

and 2 came to be allowed, restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶36

Brief facts:

¶37

The plaintiff instituted suit in O.S. No.25106/2026 seeking a relief of specific performance of an alleged oral agreement of sale dated 18.12.2025 said to have been entered into with defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.3,65,00,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that part consideration was paid and he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to execute the sale deed and in the meanwhile, executed a registered agreement of sale dated 09.01.2026 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 (appellants herein). Apprehending alienation, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.1 seeking temporary injunction.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:15930 MFA No. 1904 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The trial Court, upon consideration of the material

¶42

on record, allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.3 and 4 are before this Court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the alleged agreement of sale dated 18.12.2025 is nonexistent, not proved and the document relied upon is merely an unsigned note sheet. It is contended that the plaintiff is not a party to any valid agreement and therefore, has no enforceable right. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that the appellants are bonafide agreement holders under a registered agreement of sale dated 09.01.2026, having paid substantial advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is contended that the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury and the trial Court has erroneously relied upon disputed and inadmissible documents. It is contended that when the very maintainability of the suit is in question, the grant of injunction is unsustainable and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15930 MFA No. 1904 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1plaintiff submits that there existed a concluded oral agreement between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, which was partly acted upon. The plaintiff had paid part consideration and has also demonstrated financial readiness by securing a loan and arranging funds. It is submitted that the subsequent agreement in favour of the appellantsdefendant Nos.3 and 4 is collusive and intended to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. It is further argued that the material on record, including payment details and communications, clearly establishes a prima facie case and if the suit schedule property is allowed to be alienated, he would be put to irreparable injury and there would be multiplicity of proceedings and it is contended that the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in granting temporary injunction.

¶47

This Court has carefully considered the rival submission and perused the material on record.

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15930 MFA No. 1904 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, has held that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case based on the transaction, payment details and supporting documents. The existence of the rival agreement raises triable issue, which requires adjudication by way of a full-fledged trial. The trial Court held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, as alienation of the property would defeat the very purpose of the suit and the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury, if an injunction is not granted. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed I.A. No.1 and restrained the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property.

¶51

At the outset, it is to be noted that the present appeal arises out of an interlocutory application granting a temporary injunction and the scope of interference is limited. Unless the discretion of the trial Court is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or contrary to the settled principle, this Court would be slow to interfere. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has placed material indicating:

¶52

i. Existence of negotiation and alleged agreement;

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:15930 MFA No. 1904 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

ii. Payment of certain amount and steps taken to mobilize

¶57

funds for completion of the transaction.

¶58

Though the appellants have seriously disputed the very existence of the agreement and have relied upon a registered agreement in their favour, such disputed questions cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of interim relief. Further, the contention of the appellants that the plaintiff is not a party to a valid agreement and the document is unsigned are matters which require evidence and trial and cannot be grounds to non-suit the plaintiff at an interlocutory stage. Further, the fact that there exists a registered agreement in favour of the appellants itself indicates competing claims over the property, thereby necessitating preservation of the subject matter of the suit.

¶59

Insofar as principles governing the grant of injunction is concerned, the trial Court has assigned reasons for holding that a prima facie case exists, the apprehension of alienation justifies a finding on the balance of convenience and if the property is alienated during the pendency of the

¶60

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15930 MFA No. 1904 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

suit, it would lead to irreparable injury and multiplicity of proceedings. The discretion exercised by the trial Court is based on sound judicial principles and does not suffer from perversity or any illegality warranting interference by this Court. In view of the above, this Court is of the conclusion that the appellants have not made out a ground for interference and this Court pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64