Smt. B Pushpalatha v Prasad Vs Sri. H N Balanarasimha — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt. B Pushpalatha v Prasad Vs Sri. H N Balanarasimha — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to appellants; Miscellaneous First Appeal dismissed and the trial Court's order dated 03.09.2024 confirmed, so the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties remains in force.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order dated 03.09.2024 (allowing temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and rejecting the defendants' application under Order XXXIX Rules 3 and 4 CPC to vacate it) is erroneous and warrants being set aside. +3 more

Court's answer

The appellants' contention that the transaction is a loan and not a sale is a matter to be established at trial and cannot be a ground to deny interim protection at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

Whether the document is an agreement of sale or a security for a loan is a disputed question of fact that cannot be adjudicated at an interlocutory stage and requires full-fledged trial or appreciation of evidence.

Key takeaways

The plaintiff has established a prima facie case, particularly in view of the admitted execution of the document dated 19.09.2023 and receipt of substantial consideration (Rs.1,80,00,000/-).ratio¶50
If the defendants are permitted to alienate the suit schedule properties during the pendency of the suit, it would result in creation of third-party rights and multiplicity of proceedings, thereby causing irreparable injury.ratio¶50
The trial Court exercised its discretion judicially and in accordance with settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction; this Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal (CPC) by the defendants under Order 43 Rule 1(r) r/w Section 151 CPC against the order dated 03.09.2024 of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kanakapura on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.19/2024 — a suit by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.09.2023 (consideration Rs.2,00,00,000/-; advance Rs.1,80,00,000/- received). The trial Court had allowed the plaintiff's I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC granting temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit schedule properties, and rejected the defendants' I.A.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 3 and 4 CPC seeking vacation of the ex-parte injunction. The defendants contended the transaction was a loan secured by the sale agreement, and that properties of market value exceeding Rs.14,00,00,000/- could not have been agreed to be sold for Rs.2,00,00,000/-, negativing consensus ad idem and prima facie case. Held: whether the document is an agreement of sale or a security for a loan is a disputed question of fact incapable of adjudication at the interlocutory stage, requiring full-fledged trial; the plaintiff made out a prima facie case given the admitted execution of the document and receipt of substantial consideration; permitting alienation during the pendency of the suit would create third-party rights and multiplicity of proceedings causing irreparable injury; the loan contention cannot be a ground to deny interim protection; the trial Court exercised its discretion judicially with no illegality or perversity warranting interference. Appeal dismissed; order dated 03.09.2024 confirmed; observations confined to the interlocutory disposal and not to influence the trial.