Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from an order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, rejecting I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.No.1015/2020. The appellants (plaintiffs) entered into an agreement of sale dated 20.12.2018 with the respondent (defendant) for the purchase of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.6/1 at K Gollahalli village, Hemmigepura Dhakale, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South taluk, for a total consideration of Rs.10,75,00,000/-. On the date of agreement, the plaintiffs paid Rs.3,25,00,000/- as part payment and were put in possession of the property. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests and instead attempted to alienate the property to third parties. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance and sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property. The Trial Court rejected the injunction application, holding that the plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the Trial Court had erred in its appreciation. The plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case based on the agreement, part payment, and possession. The balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs as the defendant was attempting to alienate the property. Irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court's order, and granted the temporary injunction as prayed for.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for grant of temporary injunction. The Trial Court's rejection of injunction was set aside as the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case based on an agreement of sale and part payment. (Paras 10-15)
B) Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Part Payment - Section 53A Transfer of Property Act - The plaintiff paid Rs.3.25 Crore out of Rs.10.75 Crore and was put in possession. The defendant failed to execute the sale deed. The court held that the plaintiff's possession and part payment constitute a strong prima facie case for injunction. (Paras 5-8)
C) Civil Procedure - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Injury - The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff as the defendant attempted to alienate the property during pendency of the suit. Irreparable injury would be caused if injunction is not granted. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC when the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 01.06.2022 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.1015/2020 rejecting I.A.No.1 is set aside. I.A.No.1 is allowed, and the respondent is restrained from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit schedule property until the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable injury
- Specific performance
- Agreement of sale
- Injunction
- Possession
- Part performance
- Section 53A Transfer of Property Act
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (11) 42
M.F.A. NO.4659/2022 (CPC)
Smt. S.Susheela (Senior Counsel for Sri Raghava P., Advocate) for appellants; Sri Ashok Haranahalli (Senior Counsel for Sri Prasanna B.K., Advocate for C/R) for respondent
M/S. Sanjeevini Developers, Sri. C. Anjanappa, Sri. B. Lakshman, Sri. Hanumanthraju. C, Sri. Suresh Anjanappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil miscellaneous first appeal against rejection of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (plaintiffs) sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondent (defendant) from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property pending disposal of the suit.
Filing Reason
The respondent failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving part payment of Rs.3.25 Crore and putting the appellants in possession, and attempted to alienate the property to third parties.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District) rejected I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC vide order dated 01.06.2022.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application despite the appellants having a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury?
Whether the appellants' possession and part payment under the agreement of sale constitute a strong prima facie case for grant of injunction?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that they had a valid agreement of sale, paid Rs.3.25 Crore, and were put in possession; the respondent was attempting to alienate the property, causing irreparable injury.
Respondent argued that the agreement was not genuine and the appellants failed to make out a prima facie case; the Trial Court's order was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
For grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour, and irreparable injury. In this case, the appellants had a strong prima facie case based on the agreement of sale, part payment of Rs.3.25 Crore, and possession. The balance of convenience was in their favour as the respondent was attempting to alienate the property. Irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction was not granted.
Judgment Excerpts
The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff/appellant before the Trial Court that the plaintiff and defendant/respondent have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property...
The total consideration amount was Rs.10,75,00,000/-. On the date of agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.3,25,00,000/- as part payment and was put in possession.
The Trial Court erred in rejecting the injunction application without properly appreciating the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Procedural History
The appellants filed O.S.No.1015/2020 before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale. They also filed I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for a temporary injunction. The Trial Court rejected the IA on 01.06.2022. The appellants filed the present miscellaneous first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against that order. The High Court heard the appeal on 05.11.2024 and pronounced judgment on 23.11.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Order 43 Rule 1(r)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 53A
