IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9252 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI ANAND PILLAPPA S/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.650, MUNITHIMMAIAH LAYOUT, NEAR PREICIE TOOLS, KUDLU, MADIWALA POST, BANGALORE-560 068.

2. SRI UTTHAM SINGH JM MOBILES, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, GROUND FLOOR, SHOP 1- NO 61, Digitally signed by MUNITHIMMAIAH LAYOUT, MAHALAKSHMI B M NO.24/1, KUDLU, Location: HIGH COURT OF BENGALURU-560 068.

KARNATAKA

3. SRI CHANDRU MS CHICKEN CENTRE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GROUND FLOOR, SHOP 2 NO.61, MUNITHIMMAIAH LAYOUT, NO. 24/1, KUDLU, BENGALURU-560 068.

4. SRI BALAJI

1 BHK HOME NO. 61, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, GROUND FLOOR, MUNITHIMMAIAH LAYOUT, NO.24/1, KUDLU, BENGALURU-560 068.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ADINARAYAN AND SRI PRADEEPA T.G., ADVOCATES)

AND:

SIDDHARTH M S/O LATE MANI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.308, 3RD FLOOR, ESTHRIA BUILDING, BTM IST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 068.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUBRAMANI D., ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.915/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL, ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

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 directed against the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, in OS No. 915/2025, whereby, I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC came to be allowed, restraining the defendant No. 1 from collecting rent and directing the defendants 2 to 4 to deposit the rent before the Court. Being aggrieved, the defendants are in appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff claims to be the absolute owne of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 12.10.2022 executed by the appellant No. 1 who is his father-in-law. It is contended that though appellant No. 1 was permitted to reside temporarily, he has unlawfully inducted tenants (appellants 2 to 4) and is collecting rent. Hence, the suit is filed for eviction, recovery of rent and other consequential relief.

3. The appellants contend that the sale deed is only a nominal transaction executed to enable the plaintiff to raise a loan for marriage expenses, and that the property continues to belong to appellant No. 1. It is contended that disputes between the parties are pending including proceedings of cancellation of sale deed and partition. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Trial Court erred in treating the sale deed as an absolute conveyance without appreciating the plea that it is a nominal transaction. It is contended that the direction directing cancellation of rent and directing deposit before Court alters the existing arrangement. It is submitted that the order amounts to granting substantial relief at an interlocutory stage and suffers from improper exercise of discretion.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contend that the registered sale deed establishes a prima facie case of ownership. It is contended that after alienation, appellant No.1 has no right to collect rent and the Trial Court rightly protected the interest of the plaintiff by directing deposit of rent. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the order of the Trial Court allowing I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 restraining the appellant No.1 from collecting rent and directing appellants 2 to 4 to deposit rent before the Court calls for interference?

6. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case based on the registered sale deed and the defendant No.1 has failed to substant