Heard

Sri.

R.

Kalyan,

counsel

for

the

appellant and Sri. N.D. Vinay Kumar, counsel for

respondent no.1. Counsel for respondent no.2 to

4 is absent.

:: 3 ::

2. The appellant is defendant no.4 in the suit

O.S.No.3729/2020 on the file of VIII Addl. City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The suit is

instituted by the first respondent for specific

performance on the basis of agreement of sale

dated 21.2.2018. The appellant being the 4^th

defendant is stated to be the purchaser of the suit

property with notice of the agreement in favour of

the first respondent. In the plaint, it is clearly

stated that the first respondent is in possession of

the suit property as a tenant. The first respondent

entered

the

suit

property

as

a

tenant

and

according to him respondents 2 to 4 executed

agreement of sale in his favour for selling the suit

property for a consideration of Rs.1,40,00,000/-.

In

the

suit,

the

first

respondent

filed

two

applications

for

temporary

injunction.

Under

I.A.1, he sought to restrain the respondents no.2

to 4 and the appellant from alienating the property

and

under

I.A.2,

he

sought

to

restrain

the

:: 4 ::

appellant

and

respondents

2

to

4

from

dispossessing him till disposal of the suit. The

trial

court

allowed

these

two

applications.

Aggrieved by the order on I.A.2, this appeal has

been preferred by the 4^th defendant.

3. It is the argument of Sri. R. Kalyan that

the appellant has instituted a suit for ejection

against the first respondent. The impugned order

would come in the way of prosecuting the suit and

therefore

this

order

requires

to

be

suitably

modified. Counsel for respondent no.1 submits

that the appellant is not a bonafide purchaser and

that he purchased the suit property with notice of

agreement in favour of the first respondent.

4. After hearing both sides, it is to be stated

that the question whether the appellant is a

bonafide purchaser or not, is to be decided by the

trial court after recording evidence. At this stage,

no

inference

can

be

drawn.

As

the

plaint

:: 5 ::

discloses, the first respondent has clearly stated

that he was inducted as a tenant by respondents 2

to 4 on a monthly rent and in this connection, a

rent agreement also came into existence. The

respondents 2 to 4 might have sold the property to

the appellant, but it is a different aspect of the

matter. It is not the case of the first respondent

that possession of the suit property was delivered

to him in part performance of the agreement.

Even now he continues to be a tenant. The

appellant has stated that he has instituted a suit

for ejection and the impugned order should not

fetter his hands from taking possession in case he

succeeds in the suit for ejectment. In case the

suit for ejection is decreed, the impugned order

may come in the way of taking possession.

Therefore the impugned order requires to be

modified as argued by the learned counsel for the

appellant. If the order is modified, the interest of

:: 6 ::

the first respondent is not affected. Hence the

following:

ORDER

i.

Appeal is allowed.

ii.

The order passed by the trial court on

I.A.2 is modified to the effect that the

first

respondent

should

not

be

dispossessed

from

the

suit

property

without due process of law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd