Sri Sreenivasamurthy T Vs Sri D Krishnaraj

SRI SREENIVASAMURTHY .T S/O THIMMAIAH .G AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.323, 23^RD CROSS, VRS LAYOUT, RAJIV GANDHINAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560091. &APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI NAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI D. KRISHNARAJ S/O C.K. DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT CHOLANAYAKANAHLLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI NANJUNDARADYA, ADVOCATE AND SRI M.K. PAPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.5420/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH28, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14331 MFA No. 7537 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the Order dated 23.10.2024, passed by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (8Trial Court9 for short) in O.S.No.5420/2022, whereby the Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

¶20

Brief facts:

¶21

The plaintiff instituted O.S.No.5420/2022 seeking declaration of title, possession of the suit schedule property and cancellation of the sale deed dated 03.10.2003 executed in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the suit schedule property originally belonged to his mother, Chikkamma, who had purchased the same under the registered sale deed executed by Srigandada Kavalu Vasathi Rahithara Sangha (8Sangha9 for

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14331 MFA No. 7537 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

short) . After the death of his mother and father, the plaintiff claims to have succeeded to the property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Sangha initially cancelled the earlier sale deed executed in favour of his mother and subsequently executed another sale deed in favour of the defendant, which according to the plaintiff is void and nonbinding.

¶25

During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. The defendant appeared and contested the suit. After hearing both parties, the Trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction by Order dated 23.10.2024 which is challenged in the present appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that

¶27

the Trial Court failed to appreciate the prima facie case made out by the plaintiff. It is contended that the

¶28

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14331 MFA No. 7537 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff9s mother was unilateral and without notice, rendering the subsequent sale deed in favour of the defendant questionable. It is contended that the defendant is trying to alienate the property and create third party interest which would seriously prejudice the plaintiff. It is further contended that the Trial Court erred in concluding that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (8TP Act9 for short) would sufficiently protect the plaintiff, ignoring the possibility of multiplicity of proceedings.

¶31

Learned counsel further contends that the reasoning of the Trial Court is that the defendant is running an educational institution and therefore may not alienate the property speculative and unsustainable and that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and the injunction sought ought to have been granted.

¶32

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14331 MFA No. 7537 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Per contra , learned counsel for the

¶35

caveator/respondent justifying the order of the Trial Court, the order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference. It is contended that the respondent is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by way of a registered sale deed dated 03.10.2003 executed by Sangha and ever since then he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property. It is submitted that the respondent has put up a construction on the suit property and is running an educational institution and therefore the plea of the appellant that the respondent is attempting to alienate the property is baseless and unfounded.

¶36

It is contended that the appellant/plaintiff

¶37

having not established any prima facie case or interest over the suit property, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer as sought in the application.

¶38

6 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:14331 MFA No. 7537 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶42

submissions and perused the material on record.

¶43

The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings

¶44

and materials placed on record, recorded findings that:

¶45

i. The plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case regarding title over the suit schedule property.

¶46

ii. A serious dispute exists regarding the validity of the earlier sale deed and the plaintiff's succession to the property.

¶47

iii. The defendant claims title under the registered sale deed executed by the Sangha and is in possession of the property and the defendant has constructed a building and is running an educational institution.

¶48

iv. The plaintiff has not established that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if an injunction is not granted. The Trial Court was of the view that Section 52 of the TP Act, doctrine

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14331 MFA No. 7537 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

of lis pendens , any transfer during pendency of

¶52

the suit would be subject to the result of the suit and that balance of convenience did not lie

¶53

in favour of the plaintiff.

¶54

On these findings, the Trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction.

¶55

The suit is one for declaration of title and cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the defendant. The question as to whether the earlier sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff9s mother was validly cancelled and whether the plaintiff has succeeded to the property, are seriously disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated only after trial. The defendant claims under a registered sale deed and asserts possession over the property and it is also stated that an educational institution is functioning in the premises. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has not established a clear prima facie case. The apprehension of alienation itself cannot be a ground

¶56

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14331 MFA No. 7537 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

for grant of injunction. Unless there are materials produced to indicate that the defendant is intending to sell the property.

¶59

The Trial Court has considered the three

¶60

ingredients for grant of temporary injunction i.e., prima facie , balance of convenience and irreparable injury and assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the relief. The order passed is therefore, neither perverse nor arbitrary warranting any interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is hereby dismissed .

¶63

ii. The order dated 23.10.2024 on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.5420/2022 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (8Trial Court9 for short) is hereby affirmed.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶66

AT/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri Sreenivasamurthy T v. Sri D Krishnaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sreenivasamurthy T v. Sri D Krishnaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt R Pushpa Vs the Karnataka State Transport Authority

Sri Sanjay Asrani Vs Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Smt. Elizebeth Rani. R Vs the State of Karnataka

The Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka, Vs Karthyayini

The Union of India Vs Kanavi Abdul Khadar @ Khadar Sab

Smt. Gangamma Vs Smt. Yallamma