Non-payment of full consideration does not automatically render a registered sale deed void; such disputes must be proven at trial. In interim proceedings, the court will not grant injunctions based on mere allegations of fraud against registered instruments where no prima facie case is established.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the plaintiffs calling in question the order dated 18.12.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S. No.524/2025 by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-45) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby I.A. No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be dismissed and I.A. No.2 filed by defendant Nos.9 and 10 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was allowed, resulting in vacating the interim order of non-alienation.

Brief facts:

2. The plaintiffs instituted suit seeking declaration that the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos.1 to 8 are joint owners of the suit schedule properties, cancellation of the General Power of Attorney dated 22.10.2021 and a declaration that the sale deed dated 21.09.2024 executed in favour of defendant Nos.9 and 10 is null and void. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the properties were originally acquired by their grandfather under a registered sale deed dated 14.10.1959 and their title stood affirmed in earlier proceedings culminating in RFA No.1844/2018. It is stated that defendant Nos.9 and 10, under the guise of facilitating katha transfer, obtained a GPA and misused the same to execute a sale deed in their favour without payment of consideration. The Trial Court, upon considering I.A. Nos.1 and 2, declined to grant an injunction and vacated the earlier interim order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the GPA was obtained fraudulently and was misused to execute a self serving sale deed. It is contended that the recital in the GPA itself discloses that possession was not delivered, thereby disproving the case of the defendants. It is further contended that a sale deed executed by a GPA holder in his own favour is a case of self-dealing and is void in law. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have continued to be in possession of the suit property and are entitled for protection of such possession. That the Trial Court erred in holding the absence of a prima facie case merely on the ground of the existence of alleged documents, which is denied by the plaintiffs. It is contended that irreparable injury would be caused, if alienation is permitted, leading to multiplicity of proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.9 submits that the plaintiffs had executed a registered agreement of sale and a registered GPA coupled with interest, after receiving consideration. The sale deed dated 21.09.2024 is a registered document and title has already been passed in favour of defendant Nos.9 and 10. The allegations of fraud are matters for trial and cannot be adjudicated at the interim stage. No interim relief can be granted on such disputed questions of fact. Non-payment of consideration, even if assumed, does not invalidate the sale and the remedy, if any, lies in recovery of money. It is submitted that in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘TP Act’ for short) any alienation would be subject to the result of the suit. Hence, grant of injunction is unnecessary.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the appellants have made out a case for interference with the discretionary order of the Trial Court refusing to grant of temporary injunction?”

6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the relief sought is discretionary in nature. T