The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case of fraud to grant temporary injunctions, prioritizing prevention of irreparable harm over immediate transaction validity.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

MFA No.3048/2024 is filed by defendant No.2 challenging the order passed on I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC and MFA No.3061/2024 is filed by defendant No.2 calling in question the order passed on I.A.No.VIII filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, in O.S.No.1/2024, (common order) dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, D.K. District, Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court, thereby, the applications, I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and I.A.No.VIII filed by defendant No.2 was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that two sale deeds dated 09.10.2023 registered on 13.10.2023 and three sale deeds dated 09.10.2023 registered on 16.10.2023 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule properties 'A to E'. Also, sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction.

4. It is the sum and substance of the plaintiffs' case in brief that they are the owners of the suit schedule 'A to E' properties. Though the sale deeds have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.2, but those are by playing fraud and without sale consideration and the possession of the suit schedule properties is not handed over to defendant No.2. With these pleadings, the plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the above said reliefs.

5. The defendants have appeared through their Advocates and filed written statement and it is the defence of the defendants that the plaintiffs have received the sale consideration amount and executed the registered sale deeds by going out to defendant No.3/Sub Registrar’s office and put their signatures, thump impressions and delivered the possession of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 vehemently submitted that the plaintiffs have intended to offer the suit schedule properties for sale to defendant No.2 for a total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.8,00,00,000/- and defendant No.1 had issued three cheques dated 13.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.6,75,00,000/- and also the defendants have paid balance sale consideration amount thereto. The plaintiffs have handed over the possession to the defendants and the defendants are in possession over the suit schedule properties and it is very much reflected in the sale deeds; therefore, the allegations made in the plaint are not correct. Hence, when the plaintiffs have gone to office of Sub-Registrar's and after perusal of the sale deeds, put their signatures and affixed their thumb impressions and also given their photos by physically before the defendant No.3/Sub Registrar’s office. Therefore, there is a complete sale transaction and the possession was handed over to the defendants.

7. It is further submitted that all these averments are reflected in the sale deeds and also by subsequent conduct of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have handed over the possession to the defendants and they are in possession. Hence, submitted that the application I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and