SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 438558

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MR CHANDRASHEKAR – Appellant
Versus
MUNISWAMY L – Respondent
MFA 710/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. MR CHANDRASHEKAR

S/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

2. MR ASHWATH KUMAR

S/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

3. MR MANJUNATH

S/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

4. MRS BHAGYALAKSHMI

D/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

Digitally signed 5. MRS GEETANJALI

by

D/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM

PADMASHREE

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

SHEKHAR

DESAI

Location: High PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 5

Court Of ARE R/AT. NO. 2/1

Karnatka

SAI KRUPA NILAYA

T C PALYA ROAD, V B LAYOUT

BENGALURU- 560 036.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. CHANDRA REDDY K V., ADVOCATE,

SRI. VISHNU M.S., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.1)

AND:

1. MUNISWAMY L S/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/O. NO. 368, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, KR PURAM BENGALURU- 560 036.

2. MRS.DHANALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

3. MR M GAJENDRA S/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

4. MRS KAMALAMMA D/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

5. MRS SHYAMALA D/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

6. MRS HEMALATHA D/O. LATE MR. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 ARE R/AT. NO. 2/1 NEW POLICE STATION ROAD BEHIND GOVT. HOSPITAL, K R PURAM BENGALURU- 560 036.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARUN GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, SRI. VIVEK SUBHA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. R. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.05.11.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2570/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

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 defendants questioning the order dated 05.11.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.2570/2022 by the Court of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The said application filed for the grant of temporary injunction was allowed by the trial court, restraining defendants from alienating or creating third party interest over the suit schedule property.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The rank of the parties is retained as per the trial court for the sake of convenience.

4. The plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance by claiming that the defendants entered into an agreement of sale on 18.07.1995 but they have not executed the sale deed even after issuing notice calling upon them, therefore constrained to file the suit for specific performance.

5. The plaintiff has filed application for temporary injunction which is allowed by the trial court assailing the reasons that the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.63,55,000/- to the defendants, therefore if the defendants are alienate the property, then it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and causes injury to the plaintiff. Therefore granted an order of temporary injunction.

6. Learned counsel for defendants submitted that after 27 years from the date of agreement of sale, the suit is filed. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation, as per article 54 of the Limitation Act. Further, the plaintiff has not placed any material to show that, such huge amount was paid to the defendants and none of the receipts were produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of temporary injunction is not correct since the plaintiff has not made out prima facie and balance of convenience for grant of temporary injunction, rather the defendants are facing loss/injury due to order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court.

Therefore, prays to allow the appeal.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs submitted that he has paid an amount of Rs.63,55,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top