Mr. S.P.Muniraju Vs Mr.T S Bhaskar Reddy

MR. T.S. BHASKAR REDDY S/O MR. T.N. SONNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.115/A, I MAIN ROAD, OPP. UAS LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 094.

¶23

SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶24

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O MR. RAMASWAMY, D/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶25

MR. MANESH S/O MR. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶26

MR. JAGADISH S/O MR. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶27

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE

¶28

R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL.

¶29

SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O LATE A.P. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶30

KUM. YESHSWINI D/O LATE A.P. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶31

SMT.LALITHAMMA D/O LATE PILLAPPA,

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20375 MFA No. 9526 of 2025

HC-KAR

W/O MR. ESHWARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

MR. HEMANTH S/O MR. ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶37

MR. YESWANTH S/O MR. ESWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶38

RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 10 ARE R/AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH-560 064.

¶39

SMT. ANJANAMMA D/O LATE KAMMANAHALLI PILLAPPA,

¶40

AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,

¶41

MR. ANJANAPPA D/O MR. RAMACHANDRAPPA,

¶42

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶43

MRS. RAMAKKA D/O MR. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶44

MRS. PREMA D/O MR. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶45

MRS. BHAGYAMMA D/O MR. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶46

MRS. MANJULA D/O MR. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶47

MR. RAMANJINAPPA S/O MR. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶48

MRS. GOWRAMMA D/O MR. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶49

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20375 MFA No. 9526 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

MR. RAVI KUMAR S/O MR. RAMACHANDRAPPA,

¶52

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶53

RESPONDENT NOS.11 TO 19 ARE R/AT KASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,

¶54

DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561 203.

¶55

MR. R. KRISHNAPPA HUSBAND OF LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SEEKALAMM S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶56

MR. K. RANGASWAMY S/O MR. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶57

MRS. RATHNAMMA D/O MR. R. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶58

MR. K. PRAKASH S/O MR. R. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶59

MR. K. SHANTHA D/O MR. R. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶60

RESPONDENT NOS.20 TO 24 ARE R/AT ARADESHAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,

¶61

DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

¶62

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

¶63

MR. SRINIVAS S/O MR. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH-560 068. …RESPONDENTS

¶64

(BY SRI K.S. UDAY, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)

¶65

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20375 MFA No. 9526 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1530/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶68

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

¶69

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

¶70

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶71

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the plaintiffs assailing the order dated 30.10.2025 passed in O.S. No.1530/2013 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was rejected and the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was allowed, resulting in vacating of the interim injunction granted earlier.

¶72

Brief facts:

¶73

The plaintiffs instituted suit seeking recovery of `2,47,85,200/- with interest along with consequential reliefs, including declaration that the sale deed dated

¶74

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20375 MFA No. 9526 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

29.04.2009 is not binding to the extent of their 5/6^th share. It is the case that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and that defendant No.1 by collusion with other defendants has fraudulently obtained the sale deed and is attempting to alienate the property. An interim injunction restraining alienation was granted on 31.07.2014. Subsequently, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacating of the interim order, which came to be allowed by the impugned order.

¶77

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

¶78

the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit involves rights in immovable property, including a relief of declaration and is not merely one for recovery of money. The sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 is prima facie fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The interim order,

¶79

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20375 MFA No. 9526 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

which had been in force since 2014, ought not to have been vacated at a belated stage.

¶82

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits

¶83

that the suit is one for recovery of money arising out of contract. The defendant is ready and willing to deposit substantial amount before the Court. In such a suit, injunction restraining alienation is not warranted and continuation of the injunction causes undue hardship to the defendant.

¶84

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶85

contentions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:

¶86

“Whether the appellants have made out a case to interfere with the discretionary order of the Trial Court rejecting the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC?”

¶87

Though the plaintiffs have sought declaratory

¶88

relief, the dominant relief is for recovery of money based

¶89

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20375 MFA No. 9526 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

on an agreement of sale. In such circumstances, an order restraining alienation of the property is ordinarily not warranted. The alleged fraud and dispute as to title require a full-fledged trial. At the interlocutory stage, the plaintiffs have not established a strong prima facie case to restrain the defendant from dealing with the property.

¶92

The plaintiffs place reliance on a prior partition deed and allege fraud in the execution of the sale deed dated 29.04.2009. The material on record discloses that defendant No.1 has expressed readiness to deposit a substantial portion of the amount claimed. In that view, balance of convenience cannot be said to lie in favour of the plaintiffs, particularly when the dispute can be secured monetarily. The alleged injury to the plaintiffs is essentially financial in nature.

¶93

It is well settled that when compensation in

¶94

terms of money is an adequate remedy, no irreparable injury is made out so as to justify the grant of injunction.

¶95

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:20375 MFA No. 9526 of 2025

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

In a suit primarily for recovery of money, an order restraining alienation of immovable properties is not ordinarily warranted unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. No such exceptional circumstances are made out in the present case.

¶98

The Trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in

¶99

vacating the interim order. The mere fact that the injunction had been operating since 2014 does not create any equity in favour of the plaintiffs, particularly when the foundational requirements for grant of injunction are not satisfied. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting any interference and point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:

¶100

ORDER

¶101

i. The miscellaneous first appeal is hereby

¶102

dismissed .

¶103

ii. The order dated 30.10.2025 passed in O.S. No.1530/2013 by the II Additional Senior Civil

¶104

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:20375 MFA No. 9526 of 2025

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru

¶107

stands confirmed .

¶108

iii. Since the suit is of the year 2013, the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶109

Sd/-

¶110

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶111

MBM

¶112

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Mr. S.P.Muniraju v. Mr.T S Bhaskar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. S.P.Muniraju v. Mr.T S Bhaskar Reddy

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

Kumari Kusuma Vs Smt Nagalakshmi C

Mr. Manjunatha L Vs Mr. Narayanaswamy C

E. Balasundaram Vs Mangala Mary

Smt.Manjula T.S. Vs Smt.Manjula N

Sri Shivanadakumar J Vs Smt Shamala S K

Sri. Ramesh Vs the Assistant Commissioner