IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.303 OF 2026 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI MAHAVEER .P S/O LATE SRI N. PARASMAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.1095, 8^TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560050.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVINDRA P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI OM PRAKASH S/O SRI NANAK RAM CHOUDHARY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.143, 1^ST MAIN, Digitally signed by 3^RD CROSS, DODDANEKKUNDI, MAHALAKSHMI B M BENGALURU-560037.

Location: HIGH COURT OF …RESPONDENT KARNATAKA THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO. VIII IN O.S.NO.4599/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26), REJECTING THE I.A.NO.VIII FILED UNDER ORDER XL RULE 1 OF CPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present miscellaneous first appeal is preferred by the defendant assailing the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Court of X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-26) (‘Trial Court’ for short) in O.S. No.4599/2023, whereby I.A. No.VIII filed by the defendant under Order XL Rule 1 CPC seeking appointment of a receiver to collect the rental income of the suit schedule property came to be rejected.

Brief facts:

2. The respondent-plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property measuring 1200 square feet situated at Doddanekundi, Bengaluru under a registered sale deed dated 19.09.2014 from the previous owner. Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney dated 28.10.2014 in favour of the appellant- defendant authorizing him to deal with the property. Later, an agreement of sale dated 27.12.2019 was entered into between the parties for total consideration of `66,00,000/-, out of which an advance amount of `25,00,000/- was paid.

3. According to the appellant-defendant, upon payment of the entire consideration, the power of attorney was invoked and a sale deed dated 10.02.2023 was executed in his favour, pursuant to which, he claims to have become the owner of the property and that the khata and other revenue records stand in his name. The respondent-plaintiff instituted O.S. No.4599/2023 seeking declaration that the power of attorney and the subsequent sale deed are null and void and also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed I.A. No.VIII under Order XL Rule 1 CPC seeking appointment of a receiver to collect the rental income from the suit property, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant is a registered document and carries presumption of validity unless the same is set aside by competent Court. It is submitted that the appellant being the owner of the property is entitled to enjoy the property, including collection of rental income. It is further contended that Trial Court ought to have exercised its discretion to appoint a receiver so as to protect the property and the income derived from it, during the pendency of the suit. It is contended that the respondent has acted with malafide intention in filing the suit and if the respondent is permitted to collect the rent, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss.

5. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, rejected the application primarily on the ground that the appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary remedy, which can be exercised only in exceptional cases and circumstances. The Trial Court also noticed that an earlier order of temporary injunction had already been granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. T