IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7537 OF 2024 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI SREENIVASAMURTHY .T S/O THIMMAIAH .G AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.323, 23^RD CROSS, VRS LAYOUT, RAJIV GANDHINAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560091. …APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI D. KRISHNARAJ S/O C.K. DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT CHOLANAYAKANAHLLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M (BY SRI NANJUNDARADYA, ADVOCATE AND Location: HIGH COURT OF SRI M.K. PAPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

KARNATAKA THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION

151 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.5420/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH- 28, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND

2 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

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the Order dated 23.10.2024, passed by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short) in O.S.No.5420/2022, whereby the Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

Brief facts:

2. The plaintiff instituted O.S.No.5420/2022 seeking declaration of title, possession of the suit schedule property and cancellation of the sale deed dated 03.10.2003 executed in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the suit schedule property originally belonged to his mother, Chikkamma, who had purchased the same under the registered sale deed executed by Srigandada Kavalu Vasathi Rahithara Sangha (‘Sangha’ for short) . After the death of his mother and father, the plaintiff claims to have succeeded to the property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Sangha initially cancelled the earlier sale deed executed in favour of his mother and subsequently executed another sale deed in favour of the defendant, which according to the plaintiff is void and non-

binding.

3. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. The defendant appeared and contested the suit. After hearing both parties, the Trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction by Order dated 23.10.2024 which is challenged in the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the prima facie case made out by the plaintiff. It is contended that the cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff’s mother was unilateral and without notice, rendering the subsequent sale deed in favour of the defendant questionable. It is contended that the defendant is trying to alienate the property and create third party interest which would seriously prejudice the plaintiff. It is further contended that the Trial Court erred in concluding that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘TP Act’ for short) would sufficiently protect the plaintiff, ignoring the possibility of multiplicity of proceedings.

5. Learned counsel further contends that the reasoning of the Trial Court is that the defendant is running an educational institution and therefore may not alienate the property speculative and unsustainable and that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and the injunction sought ought to have been granted.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent justifying the order of the Trial Court, the order passed by the Trial Court does not warran