This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 96 of

the C.P.C., challenging the judgment and decree passed by the

XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in

O.S.No.82/2013, dated 01.10.2015.

2. Heard Sri K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant.

3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 both

remained absent on the last date of hearing and even today.

- 3 -

4. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as per their

original ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is the

defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff before the trial

Court.

5. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that,

he filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant

not to alienate the suit schedule property. It is contended that

the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement of

sale of the property in survey No.28/5, measuring 0.21.5

guntas of land inclusive of 0.5 guntas Kharab land situated at

Doddakallasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South

Taluk, Bengaluru, through a General Power of Attorney holder –

Lakshminarayana on 25.01.2005, for a sale consideration of

Rs.22,55,000/- of schedule ‘A’ property. The land originally

belongs to one late Sadashiva Rao. On the strength of the said

agreement dated 25.01.2005, the defendant offered to sell the

land under an agreement dated 24.03.2005, to the plaintiff to

an extent of 0.9 guntas or 10,000 sq.ft. of land, out of the land

measuring 0.21.5 guntas of land inclusive of 0.5 guntas Kharab

- 4 -

land situated at Doddakallasadra Village, for an amount of

Rs.25/- lakhs.

6. The defendant offered to sell additional land to the

plaintiff to an extent of 0.5 guntas or 5445 sq. ft., under an

endorsement to the said agreement on 12.06.2005 and

received an amount of Rs.10,89,000/- in all for 0.14 guntas of

land or 15445 sq. ft. of land, for a total sum of Rs.35,89,000/-,

in respect of ‘B’ schedule property. The plaintiff paid further

amount of Rs.5/- lakhs on 28.08.2005. Thus, in all, the

plaintiff paid a total amount of Rs.30/- lakhs to get registered

‘B’ schedule property. The plaintiff thereafter demanded the

defendant to execute the sale deed by registering the same.

When the defendant failed to execute the same, the plaintiff

filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and restraining the

defendant from alienating the suit schedule properties.

7. In pursuance of the notice, though the defendant

appear before the trial Court, did not choose to file any written

statement and contest the matter. The trial Court by

considering the evidence of PW.1 formulated point Nos.1 and 2,

which are as follows:

- 5 -

1)

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs

sought for?

2)

What order or decree?

and finally records the findings insofar as point No.1 in the

affirmative and decreed the suit, which is under challenge by

the defendant in the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant – defendant has

contended that the suit is specifically barred as per Section

41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the plaintiff is required

to file a suit for specific performance of contract and filing a suit

for bare injunction and restraining from not to alienate the

property is not contrary to law. After filing the said suit, the

plaintiff filed one more suit for specific performance which is

also pending before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court

committed an error in granting such a relief not to alienate is

against the law and therefore, prays for allowing the appeal.

- 6 -

9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 remain

absent. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant

is heard.

10.

Learned

counsel

for

the

appellant

produces

documents indicating that the respondent – defendant has

appeared and has already filed a suit in O.S.No.1449/2019,

where the appellant has also filed written statement in the said

suit.

11. After considering the rival contentions of the parties

and the d