The court establishes criteria for assessing prima facie cases concerning injunctions in property disputes and the necessity of safeguarding interests before final judgment.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

MFA No.5447/2025 is filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), dismissing the application and not to put up further construction and MFA No.4871/2025 is filed by defendant No.2 being aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, thereby allowing the application restraining the defendants from making alienation of flats, in O.S.No.1237/2025, dated 13.06.2025, on the file of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-3), at Bengaluru.

2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs have agreed to purchase the same from defendant No.1. Accordingly an agreement of sale was executed on 05.01.2018 for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,75,12,500/- and out of which, it is stated that the plaintiffs had paid an advance amount of eleven crore rupees to defendant No.1. But therafterwards defendant No.1 has not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs was constrained to file suit for specific performance of contract.

3. It is stated that defendant No.1 is in mentally incapacitated condition and therefore, defendant No.2 has filed the written statement he being son of defendant No.1 by denying all the averments. Defendant No.2 denied the plaint averments and more particularly denied payment of advance amount of eleven crore rupees through cash as no prudent man can accept such huge amount by cash. Therefore, he has totally denied the case of the plaintiffs.

4. The plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of contract and I.A.No.1 seeking ad-interim order of temporary injunction not to make alienation of the suit property and I.A.No.2 not to put up further construction. The trial Court has dismissed I.A.No.2 on the reason that the defendants have entered into a joint development agreement with the developer and developer had spent huge amount for construction and at this stage if ad-interim order is granted, then the defendant developer would be put into loss. Therefore, dismissed I.A.No.2.

5. The trial Court has allowed I.A.No.1 on the reason that the plaintiffs have produced some documents to show that there are some receipts, which show that defendant No.1 had received above stated amount. Therefore, if property is alienated to third parties, then it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the findings that the plaintiffs have made out a prima faciecase and if alienation is made, it would cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiffs. Therefore, allowed I.A.No.1.

6. Learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that defendant No.1 is owner and has received advance sale consideration amount of eleven crore rupees from the plaintiffs and also handed over the original documents to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and further submitted that if the defendants alienate the suit property during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs will be put to loss and injury and if decree is passed, it would be difficult to recover the said amount. Therefore, justified the order passed on I.A.No.1.

7. It is also submitted that, during pendency of the suit, the defendants have made construction altering the nature of property and therefore prays to ma