Karnataka High Court
Mothisingh vs Kalaiah on 7 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
MFA No. 3601 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3601 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
MOTHISINGH
S/O B. HAPU SINGH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NO.1468/69, 1ST CROSS, KABIR ROAD
LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSORE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KALAIAH
S/O LATE KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O KALAIAH
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
by SHAKAMBARI
Location: High
Court of 3 KUMARA
Karnataka
S/O KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. RAVI KUMAR
S/O KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
5. KALASWAMY B.K
S/O KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
MFA No. 3601 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. DEVAMMA
D/O KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
7. MAHADEVAMMA
D/O LATE KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8. SHIVAMMA
D/O LATE KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
9. KALAMMA
W/O LATE MARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
10. SWAMY
S/O LATE MARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
11. SAKAMMA
W/O SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
12. VARALAKSHMI
D/O SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
13. GOVINDARAJU
S/O SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
14. PAPANNA @ PAPA
S/O LATE MARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
15. GOWRAMMA
W/O PAPANNA @ PAPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
MFA No. 3601 of 2025
HC-KAR
16. DHANANJAYA
S/O PAPANNA @ PAPA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
17. MAHADEVAMMA
D/O LATE MARADAIAH
W/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
18. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
19. DEVIYA
D/O KUMAR
AGED 7 YEARS
BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY
FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
KUMARA, 3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 19 ALL ARE
RESIDING AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAWAL HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT
20. MADAIAH
S/O DODDAMADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
21. LAKSHAMMA
W/O MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.20 AND 21
ARE RESIDING AT NO.162
NAGAVALA VILLAGE, BOMMANAHALLI
YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK
22. KAMALAMMA
D/O MADAIAH
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
MFA No. 3601 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
HOUSE NO.1575, 5TH BLOCK
UDDBOOR VILLAGE
JAYAPURA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK
23. RENUKA
D/O MADAIAH
W/O SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
HOUSE NO.12, 1ST CROSS
4TH MAIN,VINAYAKA NAGARA
MYSORE-12
24. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
NAGAVALA POST, YELAWALA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK
25. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
HOUSE NO.149, BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
NAGAVALA POST, YELAWALA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK
26. NAVEEN G
S/O K.G. GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.700, PAPARAM ROAD
ITTEGEGUD, NAZARBAD MOHOLLA
MYSORE
27. A.J. SUGANANDAN
S/O A.V. JAGANATH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.209
"TEJA RESIDENCY", M.G.PALYA MAIN ROAD
H.S.R.LAYOUT, NEAR SBI BANK
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
MFA No. 3601 of 2025
HC-KAR
BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHARGAV D. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-26;
VIDE ORDER DTD.24.06.2025 NOTICE
TO R1 TO R25 & R27 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.02.05.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 AND
3 IN O.S.NO.427/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE
IA.NOS 2 AND 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W
SEC.151 OF CPC, 1908.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of
the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "CPC"), 1908,
arising out of the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the
VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mysuru in
O.S.No.427/2025, whereby, I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 filed by the
plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of read with
Section 151 of CPC were dismissed. The appellant herein
is a plaintiff before the Trial Court has preferred the
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
present appeal being aggrieved by the rejection of his
application seeking temporary injunction restraining 26th
defendant from interfering with his lawful possession and
from alienating the suit schedule property pending
disposal of the suit.
2. The facts in brief, which have given rise to
present appeal are as under:
The appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit in
O.S.No.427/2025 seeking relief of declaration and
consequential reliefs claiming that, he has acquired
irrevocable rights and possession over the suit schedule
properties by virtue of 2 registered General Power of
Attorneys executed in his favour on 05.05.2018 by
defendant Nos.1 to 19. These GPA documents are
undisputedly registered and they contain categorical
recitals to the effect that, the entire consideration had
been paid by the plaintiff to the respective executants at
the time of execution of the instruments. It is further
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
recorded in the said GPA that, possession of the property
was simultaneously handed over to the plaintiff, who has
since then been in uninterrupted and settled possession.
The plaintiff asserts that, the GPA's are not mere
instruments of agency simpliciter, but constitute authority
coupled with interest, and are therefore irrevocable in law.
3. It is the assertion of the plaintiff in the plaint
that, the defendants Nos. 1 to 25, in purported violation of
the earlier transaction with the plaintiff, executed another
GPA dated 17.05.2023 in favour of defendant No. 26,
pursuant to which the said defendant No. 26, in a self-
serving act, executed a registered Sale Deed on
26.11.2024 in his own favour. The plaintiff upon learning
of these developments in the month of February, 2025,
obtained Encumbrance Certificate and revenue records
which revealed that, defendant No.26 had also got the
revenue entries mutated in his name. The plaintiff alleges
that, the GPA dated 17.05.2023 was fraudulently and
collusively executed in complete suppression of the
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
subsisting GPA of 2018 and that the Sale Deed dated
26.11.2024 executed by defendant No. 26 in his own
favour is void and non-est in law, being based on an
invalid and unauthorized foundation.
4. Under these circumstances, plaintiff filed the
present suit in O.S.No.427/2025 on the file of the VII
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru, seeking
relief of declaration that, he has irrevocable interest in the
suit schedule property under the GPA dated 05.05.2018
and that the subsequent GPA and Sale Deed executed in
favour of and by defendant No. 26 are not binding upon
him. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has also filed two
interlocutory applications in the shape of IA.Nos.2 and 3
seeking ad-interim relief in the nature of temporary
injunction to protect his possession and restrain defendant
No.26 from alienating or altering the nature of the
property pending disposal of the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
5. Before the Trial Court, the defendants appeared
and opposed the application so filed by the plaintiff.
6. The, learned Trial Court on hearing the
arguments of both the sides on I.A.Nos.2 and 3,
proceeded to dismiss the applications of the plaintiff vide
order dated 02.05.2025, holding that, the GPA's executed
in favour of the plaintiff, even if registered, do not create
or confer any title and that defendant No. 26 having a
registered Sale Deed, has acquired superior legal rights.
The Trial Court further observed, that there are
discrepancies in the manner of recording of a sale
consideration in the GPA's and that the plaintiff had not
taken adequate steps to convert the GPA into a Sale Deed
in all these years. Holding that, no prima facie case was
made out, and that balance of convenience did not tilt in
favour of the plaintiff, the applications for temporary
injunctions were rejected. This is how now the
plaintiff/appellant is before this Court challenging the
impugned order.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and
on a thorough perusal of the records, this Court finds, that
the order of Trial Court suffers from legal infirmities and
misapplication of well settled principles governing
injunctions, irrevocable agency and possession. At the
very outset, it must be emphasized that, the law
recognizes a distinction between a simple power of
attorney and a power of attorney which is coupled with the
interest.
8. Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
provides that where the agent himself has an interest in
the property which forms the subject matter of the
agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express
contract, be terminated for the prejudice of such interest.
This doctrine is intended to protect transactions where the
agent having paid consideration or acquired a stake in the
subject matter, is placed in a position that he must not be
divested of his authority arbitrarily.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
9. In the instant case, the registered GPA dated
05.05.2018 clearly record the payment of a full
consideration, and explicitly recite the delivery of
possession of the schedule properties to the plaintiff.
These documents are not mere authorizations to act but
confer a tangible and enforceable interest upon the
plaintiff. Further, there is no rebuttal of these documents
by defendant Nos. 1 to 19, who have remained ex-parte
before the Trial Court and even before this Court and they
have not denied their execution. It is settled law that,
when a registered document carries a presumption of
genuineness under the Registration Act, the burden to
displace such a presumption lies heavily upon the person
challenging it. In the absence of any such challenge, and
in view of the fact that, the GPA's confer an interested
possession, the plaintiff clearly makes out a prima facie
case for interim protection.
10. The learned Trial Court has erroneously relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SURAJ
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
LAMP & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. (2) V. STATE OF
HARYANA, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656, without
appreciating that, the said Judgment does not apply to
transactions of the present nature. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in that very Judgment carved out exceptions to the
general prohibition on GPA sales by expressly holding that,
transactions where the GPA is coupled with consideration
and possession will not be affected by the decision. The
object of the judgment was to prevent evasion of Stamp
Duty and Benami transactions, not to invalidate genuine
and lawful agency transactions supported by consideration
and possession. The plaintiff's transaction falls fairly
within the protective exceptions to Suraj Lamp case and
was wrongly assessed by the Trial Court as a GPA sale
simpliciter. Equally displaced is the Trial Court's finding
that the plaintiff's failure to obtain a Sale Deed over
several years indicates that the GPAs are ineffective. It is
not uncommon in land transactions, especially where title
documents or revenue maps are pending, for parties to
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
execute GPAs with a view to formalize the sale
subsequently. More importantly, when the GPA is
irrevocable by reason of consideration and possession, the
lapse of time does not extinguish the underlying rights.
Furthermore, the Court ought to have recognized that the
plaintiff is in settled possession, which itself entitled same
to interim protection under law.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of Judgments
has consistently held that, a person in peaceful possession
of an immovable property, even without title, is entitled to
protection against unlawful dispossession. The 26th
defendant, who entered into the picture only in the year
2023-24, claims to have executed a Sale Deed in his own
favour on the basis of a subsequent GPA, which on the
basis of it, is in violation of the earlier irrevocable GPAs.
The Trial Court rejected the injunction application on the
ground that the 26th defendant holds a registered Sale
Deed, without adjudicating the validity of the underlying
GPA dated 17.05.2023, amounts to putting the cart before
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
the horse. Whether or not the subsequent GPA is valid in
law is itself a subject matter of the main suit. Permitting
the 26th defendant to alter the character of the property or
to dispossess the plaintiff, before the Trial is concluded,
could amount to prejudging the suit and rendering the
adjudicatory process negatory. The Court must in such
cases lean in favour of preserving status quo to ensure
that the lis is adjudicated on its merits.
12. Lastly, the Trial Court's observation on the
handwritten entries of a sale consideration in the GPAs are
premature and misplaced. The documents are registered
and the recitals are presumed to be correct, unless
rebutted. Any doubt as to the authenticity of such entries
must be tested in trial with evidence. Such speculative
reasoning cannot be a valid ground to reject interim relief,
particularly where the balance of convenience and prima
facie case are otherwise established by the plaintiff.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the plaintiff has made out a
prima facie case. The balance of convenience tilts in his
favour. If the temporary injunction is not granted as
prayed, it is plaintiff who would be put to greater hardship
in view of his continuous possession of the property right
from the date of execution of the GPA. He is in
possession, has paid full consideration, holds registered
document and faces a threat of illegal alienation and
dispossession. The injury is not merely apprehended but
imminent and irreparable. On the other hand, the 26th
defendant suffers no prejudice if status quo is preserved.
Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
14. Resultantly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
(ii) The common order dated 02.05.2025
passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil
Judge and J.M.F.C. Mysuru, in
O.S.No.427/2025 on I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 is
hereby set aside. The said applications are
allowed.
(iii) The 26th defendant is hereby restrained by
an order of temporary injunction from
interfering with the peaceful possession of
the plaintiff over the suit schedule
property and also restrained from
alienating or creating any third party
interest therein, pending disposal of the
suit.
(iv) It is made clear that all the observations
made supra are for the limited purpose of
disposal of this present appeal and shall
not influence the Trial Court while deciding
the suit on merits.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24421
HC-KAR
(v) Costs made easy.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
AM
