SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12265

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR.SRINIVAS ADHIKESHAVULU DALVOI – Appellant
Versus
M/S ANUSHKA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD – Respondent


Judgement Key Points
  • Plaintiff (respondent) owns and possesses suit properties (vacant lands in Sy.Nos.127, 129/1B, 128/1) via registered sale deeds dated 27.08.2024 and 30.11.2024 from original owner Kalikiri Subramanyam; possession handed over via deeds, khatha mutated in plaintiff's name, taxes paid to BBMP (!) (!) (!)
  • Defendant (appellant) relies on unregistered agreement of sale dated 29.11.2011 and MOU dated 08.12.2021 with Kalikiri Subramanyam; claims payment of Rs.9,93,59,730/-, receipt of original title deeds, and possession (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Trial court granted temporary injunction to plaintiff (I.A.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1-2 CPC), rejected defendant's vacate application (I.A.No.4 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) finding prima facie case for plaintiff based on registered deeds vs. defendant's unregistered documents; defendant appealed (MFA 1242/2025) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Section 17 Registration Act, 1908 requires registration for transfer of property by sale; unregistered agreements/MOU do not convey title or possession (!) (!) (!)
  • For vacant land, possession follows title; plaintiff with registered sale deeds prima facie in possession over defendant with unregistered documents (!) (!) (!)
  • Unregistered agreements post-24.09.2001 (effective date of Section 17(1A) Registration Act) cannot invoke Section 53A Transfer of Property Act for part performance/possession protection (!) (!) (!)
  • Section 49 Registration Act proviso allows unregistered documents as evidence of contract for specific performance or collateral purposes, but not for title/possession claims here (!) (!) (!)
  • Plaintiff established prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury justifying temporary injunction; defendant's case not more probable (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Appeal dismissed; trial court observations on admitted facts/documents, not binding on suit merits (!) (!)

CAV JUDGMENT

The defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the Court of I Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.9272/2024, thereby, allowed I.A.No.2 granting an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule Item Nos.1 to 4 properties and an exparte order of temporary injunction is made absolute thereby rejecting I.A.No.4 filed by the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. Therefore, challenging the same the defendant has preferred this appeal.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over suit Item Nos.1 to 4 properties. It is the case of plaintiff that plaintiff is the owner in possession of residentially converted and developed vacant land bearing Sy.Nos.127, 129/1B, 128/1. Having purchased the said properties by the plaintiff from its original owner - Sri.Kalikiri Subramanyam through under registered sale deeds dated 27.08.2024 and 30.11.2024 respectively and thus, claimed that the plaintiff is in pos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top