High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Rejects Trial Court's Dismissal of Temporary Injunction. Agreement of Sale for Rs.10.75 Crore with Rs.5 Crore Advance — Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience in Favor of Plaintiff-Appellant.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 12:45:49

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, M/s. Sanjeevini Developers and others, filed a miscellaneous first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the 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 suit was for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 01.10.2018 in respect of suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.6/1 situated at K Gollahalli village, Hemmigepura Dhakale, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South taluk, measuring 5 acres. The total consideration was Rs.10,75,00,000/-. On the date of agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,00,000/- as advance. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was trying to alienate the property to third parties despite the agreement. The Trial Court rejected the injunction application on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove possession. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case as substantial consideration was paid. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, and irreparable injury would be caused if injunction was not granted. The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order and allowed the appeal, granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property until disposal of the suit.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The plaintiff-appellant entered into an agreement of sale for 5 acres of land for Rs.10.75 Crore and paid Rs.5 Crore as advance. The Trial Court rejected the injunction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove possession. The High Court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case as substantial consideration was paid and the defendant attempted to alienate the property. (Paras 3-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The High Court found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, as the defendant was trying to sell the property to third parties despite the agreement. Irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if injunction was not granted. (Paras 11-15)

C) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Possession - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The Trial Court erred in rejecting the injunction solely on the ground of possession. The High Court noted that the plaintiff had paid a huge advance and the defendant's conduct in attempting to alienate the property justified the grant of injunction. (Paras 16-20)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, despite the plaintiff having made substantial payment and being in possession of the suit property.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court's order dated 01.06.2022, and granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit schedule property until disposal of the suit.

Law Points

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
Temporary Injunction
Prima Facie Case
Balance of Convenience
Irreparable Injury
Agreement of Sale
Specific Performance

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (12) 34

M.F.A. NO.4659/2022 (CPC)

2024-11-23

H.P. Sandesh

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

Sri. Mohan Das R.

Nature of Litigation

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 temporary injunction restraining the respondent (defendant) from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property.

Filing Reason

The Trial Court rejected the injunction application on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove possession.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court (III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District) rejected I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on 01.06.2022 in O.S.No.1015/2020.

Issues

Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application despite the plaintiff having paid substantial advance and the defendant attempting to alienate the property. Whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for grant of temporary injunction.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that they paid Rs.5 Crore advance out of total consideration of Rs.10.75 Crore and the defendant was trying to sell the property to third parties. Respondent argued that the plaintiff failed to prove possession and therefore no injunction should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

In a suit for specific performance, where the plaintiff has paid substantial advance consideration and the defendant attempts to alienate the property, a prima facie case for temporary injunction is made out. The balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff, and irreparable injury would be caused if injunction is not granted, regardless of the plaintiff's possession.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff and defendant have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property... total consideration amount was Rs.10,75,00,000/-. The Trial Court rejected the injunction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove possession. The High Court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case as substantial consideration was paid and the defendant attempted to alienate the property.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.1015/2020 for specific performance and filed I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction. The Trial Court rejected the IA on 01.06.2022. The plaintiff appealed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC to the High Court, which reserved judgment on 05.11.2024 and pronounced on 23.11.2024.