1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.541 OF 2025 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. R. HARISH BABU S/O LATE SRI. RAMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT. NO. 555, 4TH FLOOR AXIS PADEGAL

9TH CROSS ROAD JP NAGAR, 3RD PHASE BANGALORE-560078.

...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA H.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI SRIDHAR (ALSO KNOWN AS VIJI SRIDHAR)

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O SRI. SRIDHAR ORDINARILY RESIDING AT NO.608, JAMERSON ROAD CARY NC 27519 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ALSO RESIDING AT NO.506

9^TH CROSS, VTC J.P. NAGAR BANGALORE-560078.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.96(1) OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.II IN OS NO.4479/2023 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY., ALLOWING THE IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.07.2025, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. JUDGMENT This appeal is by the plaintiff assailing the order of the learned Judge on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of plaint. The learned Judge has rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, by applying Order VII Rule

11(d), learned Judge has proceeded to reject the plaint, which is now impugned in the captioned appeal.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, who is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, from alienating or creating any third-party interests in respect of the said property, allegedly in violation of an oral contract entered into with the plaintiff, commencing from

09.05.2023.

The plaintiff, who is the Managing Director of a company named Axis Concept Constructions Pvt. Ltd., asserts that he was actively in search of a suitable residential/commercial property in and around Bangalore.

Upon learning that the defendant, a resident of the United States of America, was intending to sell the suit schedule property, the plaintiff claims to have established contact with her through telephonic conversation. It is further alleged that during the said communication, the defendant unequivocally accepted the plaintiff’s offer to purchase the property.

Relying on WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties, the plaintiff contends that an oral agreement was concluded wherein the defendant not only agreed to sell the property but also instructed the plaintiff to initiate the process by procuring relevant documents required to effectuate the transaction. The plaintiff claims to have acted upon this assurance and incurred substantial expenses towards compliance. It is further alleged that the plaintiff shared a draft sale deed along with a calculation sheet, and that, at the instance of the defendant, modifications were made to the said draft. The plaintiff also states that, upon his insistence, the defendant secured letters of consent from her siblings, indicating her continued willingness to proceed with the transaction.

However, the plaintiff avers that upon the defendant’s arrival in India, she inexplicably ceased further communication and refrained from honoring the terms and conditions of the alleged oral agreement. According to the plaintiff, on 07.07.2023, he was informed by reliable sources that the defendant was in active negotiations with third parties and was attempting to alienate the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, while asserting hi