: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

M.F.A.No.102788/2020 c/w

M.F.A.No.102789/2020 (CPC)

IN MFA NO 102788 OF 2020

BETWEEN

TAMMINEDI RAMAKRISHNA S/O

SATYANARAYANA

AGE 58 YRS, OCC AGRICULTURE,

R/O MANVI, TQ MANVI,

DIST RAICHUR PIN 584123

.....APPELLANT IN

M.F.A.No.102788/2020

T BALARAMAKRISHNA S/O GANGANNA

AGE 62 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,

R/O HULKIHAL CAMP, TQ KARATAGI,

DIST KOPPAL.

.....APPELLANT IN

M.F.A.No.102789/2020

(BY SRI ARAVIND D KULKARNI, ADV.)

AND

SMT.N JAYALAKSHMI W/O N. SRINIVAS,

AGE 38 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST,

R/O SRIRAMNAGAR VILLAGE,

NOW AT JAYANAGAR, GANGAVATHI,

DIST KOPPAL PIN 583227

…..COMMON RESPONDENT

(BY SRI J.S. SHETTY, ADV.)

: 2 :

MFA No.102788/2020 IS FILED U/S. 104 AND UNDER

ORDER XLIII RULE (1)(R) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.120/2019

ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GANGAVATHI,

ALLOWING THE I.A. NO. II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1(a)

READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

MFA No.102789/2020 is FILED U/S. 104 AND UNDER

ORDER XLIII RULE (1)(R) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.121/2019

ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GANGAVATHI,

ALLOWING THE I.A. NO. II FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1(a)

READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

These appeals are directed against the order dated

18.12.2020 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Gangavathi, in O.S.Nos.120/2019 and 121/2019 wherein

the application marked as I.A.2 filed by the defendant

under Order 39 Rule 1(a (b) and (c) read with Section 151

of C.P.C. came to be allowed.

2.

As the matter is interconnected, these appeals

are taken up together for disposal.

: 3 :

3.

In order to avoid confusion and overlapping,

parties are addressed in accordance with the rankings held

by them before the trial Court.

4.

There are two appeals filed by the respective

plaintiffs seeking specific performance of the contract. It is

the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs and the defendant

in both the suits entered into a sale agreement in respect

of the schedule property and the defendant who is the

owner of the suit property executed two registered sale

agreements of schedule properties bearing Sy.No.72/*/4

total extent 10 acres 2 guntas for a sale consideration of

Rs.20,00,000/- each for the extent of 5 acres 1 guntas and

received an advance amount of Rs.19,00,000/- for each 5

acres 1 guntas. Further on execution of the sale deed it

was agreed by the defendant that after the preparation of

11(E) map, plaintiffs to give remaining Rs.1,00,000/- in

each of the cases for execution of the registered sale

deeds. The date of both the sale agreements is

13.04.2016 in favour of one Tamminedi Ramakrishna S/o.

: 4 :

Satyanarayana and T. Balaramakrsihna S/o. Ganganna by

Smt. N. Jayalaxmi W/o. N. Srinivas. The total sale

consideration agreed between the parties in each case is

Rs.20,00,000/- and advance amount paid under the

agreement is Rs.19,00,000/- in each case and balance

would be payable Rs.1,00,000/- in each case. Rest all are

the other aspects of in respect of sale of immovable

property. As the defendant was not ready to execute the

sale deeds, plaintiffs constrained to file individual suits. In

the said suits, the defendant made applications under

Order 39 Rule 1(a) (b) and (c) read with Section 151 of

C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction to restrain the

plaintiffs from alienating the property till the disposal of

the suits. The trial Court allowed the applications filed in

both

the

suits

and

granted

temporary

injunction

restraining the plaintiffs in both the suits. Being aggrieved

by the orders of granting temporary injunction by the trial

Court in both the suits, the respective plaintiffs have