IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1334 OF 2026 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MUNIYAPPA HUSBAND OF LATE M. RATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DASALAGERE VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114.

2. SMT. MEENAKSHI @ MEENA, D/O SRI MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DASALAGERE VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114.

3. SRI VINAY, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA, Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, COURT OF DASALAGERE VILLAGE, KARNATAKA NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114.

4. SRI M. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE SRI K. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, A.K. COLONY, PILLAKAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI, SHANKARANAGARA POST, BENGALURU-560092.

5. SMT. M. LAKSHMI, D/O LATE SRI K. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O SRI MANJUNATH, NO.02, JNATHA COLONY, AMRUTHAHALLI, SHANKARANAGARA POST, BENGALURU-560092.

6. SMT. M. RAJESHWARI, D/O LATE K. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O SRI DEVARAJU, NO.03, JNATHA COLONY, AMRUTHAHALLI, SHANKARANAGARA POST, BENGALURU-560092.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI HEGDE S. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI A. FIROZ AHMED S/O LATE AZEEZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, SY. NO.7 & 8, LINGADHEERAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOLBLI & CIRCLE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.I TO III IN O.S.NO.702/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE I.A.NOS.I TO III FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., 1908.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the defendants calling in question the order dated 03.01.2026, passed on I.A.Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.702/2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the Trial Court has allowed the applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

Brief facts:

2. The plaintiff instituted suit O.S.No.702/2025 seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 24.09.2019 contending that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property for a total consideration of `3,78,00,000/- and received an advance of amount of `10,00,000/-. It is alleged that despite repeated demands and issuance of legal notice, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and are attempting to alienate the property and alter its nature.

3. The defendants on the other hand have denied the execution of any agreement of sale and have contended that the transaction relied upon by the plaintiff is in the nature of a loan transaction and the document is only a security document. It is further contended that there were prior transactions with respect to suit property and the suit is not maintainable.

4. Sri Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order suffers from a fundamental error, inasmuch as the Trial Court has proceeded on the premise that the agreement dated 24.09.2019 is a registered agreement of sale, whereas, admittedly the said document is not a registered document in the eye of law. It is contended that this erroneous assumption is not mere irregularity, but goes to the root of the finding on prima facie case since the Trial Court has relied upon such characterization to conclude that the plaintiff has established a legal enforceable right. Therefore, the entire exercise of discretion stands vitiated by misreading of a material document warranting interference.

5. Per contra, learned c