Partly allowed

Smt Suma K R v. Sri Somanna

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/30365/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance. The Court set aside the lower courts' orders, partly allowed the injunction to maintain status quo, and reserved the merits for trial.

What did the court decide?

IA no.1 in O.S. no. 83/2025 partly allowed; orders in MA no. 26/2025 and IA no.1 set aside; status quo maintained on schedule property.

Smt Suma K R Vs Sri Somanna — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:29812 WP No. 30365 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.30365 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT SUMA K.R. W/O A.L. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. R/O SARANGAPNI TEMPLE EXTENSION, MOOLE GANAPATI TEMPLE, NEAR KOTE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 430

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. LINGARAJU K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI SOMANNA S/O DEVANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. RATHANAMALA W/O SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶16

SRI, CHANDRU. S S/O SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶17

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 2 ARE R/AT JANTAGALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571311.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29812 WP No. 30365 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI S.SHIVAKUMARASWAMY, S/O LATE SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. R/O, NO.1134, KARUNA MARGA, SIDDARTHANAGARA, MYSURU DISTRICT – 570011.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SANDEEP KATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SMT. SHOBHA BHAVIKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF THE III ADDL., DISTRICT JUDGE MYSURU IN MA.NO.26/2025 AND BY THE VI ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN OS.NO.83/2025 AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU IN MA.NO.26/2025 DATED 23/08/2025 AND THE VI ADDL., SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN OS.NO.83/2025 DATED 27/02/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B AND ORDER TO ALLOW THE IA., NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2025 passed

¶28

in MA.No.26/2025 by III Addl. District Judge, Mysore, confirming the order dated 27.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.83/2025 by VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore, the petitioner who is the plaintiff before the trial Court is before this Court.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:29812 WP No. 30365 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioner herein has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27.06.2018. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have executed an agreement of sale and thereafter, when they have failed to execute a regular sale deed by producing all the relevant documents, he has issued a notice to them and thereafter, filed the instant suit and along with the suit, he has filed I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining defendant No.4 from alienating the schedule property and that came to be dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 27.02.2025.

¶33

While dismissing the application, the Court observed that it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has created the sale agreement by misusing the signed bond papers received during the time of advancing loan to defendant Nos.1 to 3 by the husband of plaintiff without verifying the document of the property during the year 2018 and also the Court observed that the registered sale deed is dated 07.06.2024 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4. The family members have acquired the

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29812 WP No. 30365 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

property on 20.12.2023 under the Registered Partition Deed, but the agreement of sale is of the year 2018. When the description of the property is denied by the defendants, it is not justifiable to grant temporary injunction against the defendants.

¶37

It is further observed that on perusal of the Sale Agreement Renewal Shara dated 21.01.2019 and 21.11.2022, prima facie, it appears that defendant No.1 only signed the documents. The Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and accordingly, rejected the IA that is filed seeking for temporary injunction not to alienate the property. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed MA.No.26/2025. The Appellate Court has also confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. While confirming the same, the Court observed that the petitioner has sought for a specific performance and also a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is null and void. These reliefs have to be granted to the plaintiff on establishing the right by the plaintiff.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29812 WP No. 30365 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

It is further observed that, at this juncture,

¶41

though there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff as there is an agreement of sale executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff and there are two renewal agreements, but these are the triable issues, but balance of convenience does not lie in favour of plaintiff as the sale deed is already executed in favour of defendant No.4, where he has paid Rs.60,00,000/to defendant Nos.1 to 3 on execution of the sale deed. Even if the interim order is not granted, irreparable injury will not cause, which cannot be compensated. Hence, the Court has come to the conclusion that three ingredients to grant the interim temporary intention are not available to the plaintiff. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of temporary injunction. The Appellate Court observes that the trial Court after appreciating the material on record has passed the order and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the M.A. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29812 WP No. 30365 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the respondents have admitted about the amount that is paid and when there is renewal agreements, they have taken a stand stating that they have not entered into any agreement and the petitioner has made them to sign on those papers. All these matters have to be decided by the Court during the course of trial. But at this juncture, the trial Court cannot go into all these aspects and the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and during the pendency of the case, if respondent No.4 alienates the property, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and this aspect was not considered by the Court.

¶45

It is submitted that defendant Nos.1 to 3 selling the property in favour of defendant No.4 cannot be considered as a balance of convenience in their favour and the counsel submitted that the Court has failed to consider the facts that the petitioner satisfies the required ingredients for grant of injunction and is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for defendant

¶47

Nos.1 to 3 submits that the Court has rightly considered the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:29812 WP No. 30365 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

fact and the counsel points out that the renewal agreement wherein only one of the parties was present. It is submitted that they are denying the execution of the agreement of sale. As such, the Court has rightly dismissed the IA.

¶52

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 who is the purchaser submits that the notice is also issued after execution of the sale deed as on the date defendant No.4 has purchased the property. No litigation is pending and he is the bonafide purchaser by paying valuable consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and the trial Court has taken note of this fact and the Appellate Court has confirmed the same. Under these circumstances, the orders passed by both the Courts are well considered orders. There are no reasons to interfere with the said orders.

¶53

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on records.

¶54

The suit is filed seeking specific performance and a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. In this case, according to the plaintiff, there is an

¶55

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29812 WP No. 30365 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

agreement of sale and he has given certain amounts towards the sale consideration. According to the defendants, they have received the sale consideration amount, however it is their case that whatever amounts that are received are taken as loan and they have not executed any agreement of sale and that is a fabricated document. These issues whether it is a fabricated document or not will be considered by the Court during the course of the trial. Mere denial by the defendants itself cannot be a factor for the Court while considering an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The acceptance of money as stated by the petitioner in the plaint is accepted by the defendants. However, they say that it is not for the purpose of selling the property, but for something else.

¶58

In these circumstances, all those questions have to be decided at the time of trial. The trial Court and the Appellate Court went on a premise that already Rs.60,00,000/is paid by the defendants. As such, the balance of convenience is in the favour of the defendants. The said finding cannot be sustained for the reason that if there is an agreement of sale according to the plaintiff, if the defendant sells the property

¶59

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:29812 WP No. 30365 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

and it is purchased by respondent No.4 for valuable consideration that itself cannot be a ground to reject the application that is filed by the plaintiff. The whole purpose of this injunction petition is, if respondent No.4 alienates the property, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and to preserve the suit schedule property, the interim injunction is very much required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶62

When this matter came up for preliminary hearing, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court has granted an order of status quo on 05.11.2025 and that order is continuing till date. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following

¶63

ORDER

¶64

The orders passed in MA.No.26/2025 and in IA.No.1 in O.S.No.83/2025 are set aside.

¶65

The IA.No.1 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.83/2025 is partly allowed by directing the parties to maintain status quo.

¶66

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and any of the observations made by this

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:29812 WP No. 30365 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Court shall not be construed as an expression of this Court.

¶71

The Court shall decide the matter on the merits of the matter.

¶72

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶73

All the contentions are kept open.

¶74

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶75

PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt Suma K R v. Sri Somanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Suma K R v. Sri Somanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jagadish v Vs M/S Corporation Bank

S R Prakesh Vs S R Shobha

Sri. H. N. Harshavardhana Vs Smt. M. R. Jyothi

Smt. Shivamma Vs R.C. Srinivasamurthy

B Narakesari Vs N S Nataraju

Smt. Bibi Sabira Vs H C Basavaraju