IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5551 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

MR. M.M.PRASANNA KUMAR SON OF LATE MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.441, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. D.VINOD SIVAPPA Digitally SON OF LATE D.SIVAPPA, signed by AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RAMYA D RESIDING AT NO.4, LAVELLE ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, BANGALORE-560 001.

Location:

…RESPONDENT HIGH COURT (BY SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADV., A/W OF MS. SHRISTI WIDGE., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

KARNATAKA THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.17.07.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.3401/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-14, C/C V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-13, DISMISSING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908 & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 3 of CPC in O.S.No.3401/2025 by V Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-13) vide Annexure-A, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of contract. The application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is dismissed.

3. It is the case made out by the plaintiff that there was an agreement to sell dated 17.12.2002 in respect of the suit schedule property for total sale consideration of Rs.3,47,00,000/- and on the very same day, the defendant received an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff by way of four pay orders of Rs.25,00,000/- each dated 14.12.2002. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has paid the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,47,00,000/- to the defendant on various dates. The defendant has acknowledged the same. Thus, the plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration amount to the defendant as agreed in the agreement to sell dated 17.12.2002. But the defendant has not come forward for execution of the registered sale deed. Therefore, on 14.12.2004, the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant as to whether the defendant intends to rescind the agreement in terms of Clause No.10 of the agreement. But the defendant neither rescinded the agreement nor sent any reply to the said notice. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract.

4. The defendant has filed written statement by contending that he has not agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,47,00,000/- and he has not received the said sale consideration amount. A sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant as a loan. It is the case of the defendant that the alleged agreement to sell was executed as a form of security for repayment of loan secured by the defendant from the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that the transaction was a loan transaction secured by mortgage by depositing the title deed. Therefore, the agreement to sell is a null and void document.

5. The plaintiff has filed the application for temporary injunction by contending that by virtue of agreement to sell, the defendant has handed over the possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, he is in possession and also if the defendant makes alienation of the property, then it would cause multiplicity of proceedings. Then also the suit becomes infructuous.

Therefore, prays for allowing the appeal.

6. Upon considering the rival submissions and material produced at this stage, the points that arise for consideration are as under:

(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstanc