Fraud vitiates consent, allowing parties to challenge transactions based on misrepresentation, affirming the importance of preserving possession until trial.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

This Court is called upon to examine the correctness and validity of the impugned order dated 12.2.2025 passed by the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in OS No.1749/2024. By the said order, the learned trial Court allowed I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC , 1908 restraining the appellants and other defendants from alienating, encumbering or creating third party interests over the suit schedule property and also from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the property during the pendency of the suit.

2. The present appeal arises from that order and the appellant seeks to impugne it on several grounds including, but not limited to, the alleged absence of a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, the lack of urgency to warrant injunctive relief and the trial Court's failure to consider that the plaintiffs had voluntarily executed the sale deed and received the agreed sale consideration.

3. The controversy between the parties; is too complex and fact - intensive. It revolves around the execution of a registered sale deed dated 22.02.2024 (registered on 6.5.2024) concerning immovable property bearing Sy.Nos.57/1A and 57/2 measuring approx. 2 acres 29.2 guntas in Talaghattapura Village, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is the plaintiffs claim that the property was agreed to be sold for Rs.20 crores but, the appellant misrepresented and fraudulently altered the terms to reflect a much lower price of Rs.7,01,51,515/- in the registered deed.

4. This Court, having carefully reviewed the pleadings, records and detailed order passed by the trial Court, is now called upon to determine whether the impugned order deserves to be upheld or warrants interference.

5. The first plaintiff, B.M.Jagadeesh is stated to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having acquired it by registered sale deed dated 29.04.1995. The plaintiffs, including his wife and son have been in possession of the said property for several decades. The said property was converted for residential use pursuant to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the year2006.

6. The dispute arose when the plaintiffs entered into a series of sale negotiations with the appellant. Initially registered agreement of sale was executed between the parties on 17.10.2022 for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,30,44,050/-. Owing to disagreements, particularly concerning the extent of land and pending litigations, this agreement was mutually cancelled via a registered cancellation deed dated 20.4.2024. Thereafter, a fresh negotiation was held and it was purportedly agreed that, the suit schedule property alone would be sold for a consideration of Rs.20 crores. However, according to the plaintiffs, the appellant, who had, by then gained their trust, deceptively induced them to execute a sale deed showing the sale consideration as Rs.7,01,51,515/-, a figure drastically lower than the mutually agreed amount. The plaintiffs allege that, only Rs.4,70,75,000/- has been received so far and the remaining 15,09,025/- is still due. The plaintiffs state that, they were mislead into signing the sale deed without being given a fair opportunity to verify the terms. Further, they contend that, possession was never handed over to the appellant and that they remain in physical possession of the suit properties and its original title documents.

7. On the other hand, the appellants contend that, the plaintiffs being well-inf