IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3218 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. UDAYA SHANKAR BABU S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O NO 114/2, NANJAPPA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 097 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUSHEELA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. K. SHOBHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. UMESHA S C S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA @ SANNEGOWDA Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RAMYA D R/O SATHANURU VILLAGE AND POST, Location: SATHANURU HOBLI, HIGH KANAKAPURA TALUK COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRAKASH.M.H, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 28.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN O.S.NO.437/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA, REJECTING THE IA.NO. III FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.437/2021 questioning the order dated 28.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.III filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.437/2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura¹, thereby, the application filed for vacating the interim order of temporary injunction is rejected.

3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

4. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract by pleading that the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property and that an unregistered agreement of sale was executed between the plaintiff and defendant dated 14.09.2020 for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,70,00,000/-. It is further pleaded that an advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid through a cheque to the defendant and an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was paid through cash, but the defendant has not come forward to execute the sale deed as per the unregistered agreement of sale; therefore, the plaintiff after issuing the legal notice dated 17.08.2021 filed the suit on 08.09.2021.

5. The plaintiff has filed an application I.A.No.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, which was allowed restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule properties. The defendant has filed written statement and the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant/appellant has contended that the defendant had taken hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and towards security for the same, a document of unregistered agreement of sale was executed and the defendant really has not intended to sell away the suit schedule land, but the plaintiff has created this circumstance as an unregistered agreement of sale, this was not correctly considered by the Trial Court, resulting into passing of erroneous and perverse order. By which, the defendant is blocked from utilizing his own land. Hence, in this line of prayer, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court is perverse and illegal, which needs interference by this Court. Also, places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION VS. B. GUNASHEKAR AND ANOTHER² (Correspondence case)

2025 SCC Online SC 793

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the defendant has admitted the execution of unregistered agreement of sale and receipt of having paid an advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through the cheque and there is a recital in the unregistered agreement of sale that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- by way of cash on various dates and the defendant had acknowle