IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8307 OF 2024 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. B PUSHPALATHA V PRASAD W/O SRI. B S VAGESH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

2. SMT. B SHIKA V PRASAD, D/O SRI. B S VAGESH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO.1736, 12^TH MAIN, 31^ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 070.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. PANINI A H.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF SRI. H N BALANARASIMHA KARNATAKA S/O LATE NARAYANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O HERINDYAPANAYHALLI VILLAGE, KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPUARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562159.

…RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.19/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 defendants calling in question the order dated 03.09.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.19/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kanakapura (for short ‘the trial Court), whereby the application i.e., I.A.No.1 filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties has been allowed and the application i.e., I.A.No.2 filed by the appellants/defendants under Order XXXIX Rules 3 and 4 of the CPC seeking vacating of the order of ex-parte temporary injunction has been rejected.

Brief facts

2. The plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.19/2024 seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.09.2023 in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants agreed to sell the properties for total consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- was paid as advance and the balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- remained unpayable. The plaintiff claims readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

3. On the other hand, the defendants contend that the said transaction is not a sale agreement but a loan transaction, and an agreement of sale was executed only as a security for repayment of the loan amount. In the said suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties, which came to be allowed and the appellants’/defendants' application to vacate the same came to be rejected, which leading to the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the trial Court is erroneous and contrary to law. It is contended that the transaction between the parties is purely a loan transaction and not an agreement of sale and the document dated 19.09.2023 was executed only as a security.

5. It is further contended that the market value of the suit schedule properties is more than Rs.14,00,00,000/- and no prudent person would agree to sell the same for Rs.2,00,00,000/-, which itself probalises the case of the appellants. It is contended that the trial Court failed to consider the absence of consensus ad-idem and has erroneously granted injunction without there being a prima-facie case. It is contended that the plaintiff has not established irreparable injury or balance of convenience and the trial Court has granted injunction mechanically without proper appreciation of facts and settled principles governing grant of temporary injunctions. Hence, the present appellants sought to set aside the impugned order.

6. This Court has carefully considered the contention and perused the materials placed on record.

7