Karnataka High Court
Sri Dommaraju Prabhakar vs Sri K V Rajagopal Reddy on 4 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
MFA No. 8432 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 8437 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8432 OF 2024 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8437 OF 2024 (CPC)
IN MFA No. 8432/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DOMMARAJU PRABHAKAR
S/O D DOMMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO 325/4, 11TH CROSS,
20TH MAIN, F - BLOCK,
SAHAKARANAGARA,
BENGALURU 560092
...APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. ANJANEYA A B.,ADVOCATE)
BHARATHI S
AND:
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 1. SRI K V RAJAGOPAL REDDY
KARNATAKA S/O LATE VENGALA REDDY K
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO 1, SRI BHAGAVATHI,
PANATHUR ROAD,
NEAR BELLANDUR TANK,
YAMALUR POST,
YAMALUR BENGALURU 560037
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
MFA No. 8432 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 8437 of 2024
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SRI C I RAVINDRANATH,
S/O LATE ISHWARDASS
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO 12, SERVICE ROAD,
DOMLUR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU 560071
2. SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
3. SRI VARADARAJA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
4. SMT AKKAYAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
5. SRI SHASHIRAJA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
6. SMT MANJAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
7. SRI CHIKKA MUNIGA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
8. SMT GIRIJAMMA
D/O CHIKKA MUNIGA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
MFA No. 8432 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 8437 of 2024
HC-KAR
9. SRI RAVI
S/O CHIKKA MUNIGA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
10. SRI PILLAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
11. SMT PADMA
D/O PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
12. SRI CHANDRA
S/O PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
13. SMT MUNIVENKATAMMA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
14. SRI PUTTAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
15. SMT RADHA
D/O PUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
16. SMT MUNIYAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
17. SRI VENKATARAMA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
MFA No. 8432 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 8437 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
18. SRI VARADARAJU
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
19. SRI PUJAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
20. SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
21. SMT MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
22. SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
23. SRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
24. SMT PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
25. SMT SUSHEELAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
26. SMT PUSHPA
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
MFA No. 8432 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 8437 of 2024
HC-KAR
D/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
GANTAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI AND TALUK,
ERSTWHILE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 560064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.VACHAN H U.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 TO 26 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 24.12.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) R/W
SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
19.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.8 IN OS.NO.687/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
IN MFA NO. 8437/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DOMMARAJU PRABHAKAR
S/O D DOMMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 325/4, 11th CROSS,
20tH MAIN, F BLOCK
SAHAKARANAGARA,
BENGALURU 560092
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANJANEYA A B.,ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
MFA No. 8432 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 8437 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI K V RAJAGOPAL REDDY
S/O LATE VENGALA REDDY K
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, SRI BHAGAVATHI,
PANATHUR ROAD,
NEAR BELLANDURU TANK
YAMALUR POST, YAMALUR
BENGALURU 560037
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SRI. C I RAVINDRANATH,
S/O LATE ISHWARDASS
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 12, SERVICE ROAD,
DOMLUR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU 560071
2. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
3. SRI. VARADARAJA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
4. SMT AKKAYAMMA
D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
5. SRI. SHASHIRAJA
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
MFA No. 8432 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 8437 of 2024
HC-KAR
6. SMT MANJAMMA
D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
7. SRI. CHIKKA MUNIGA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
8. SMT. GIRIJAMMA
D/O CHIKKA MUNIGA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
9. SRI. RAVI
S/O CHIKKA MUNIGA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
10. SRI. PILLAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
11. SMT. PADMA
D/O PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
12. SRI. CHANDRA
S/O PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
13. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
14. SRI. PUTTAPPA
S/O VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
MFA No. 8432 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 8437 of 2024
HC-KAR
15. SMT. RADHA
D/O PUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
16. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
17. SRI. VENKATARAMA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
18. SRI. VARADARAJU
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
19. SRI. PUJAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
20. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
21. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
22. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
23. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
MFA No. 8432 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 8437 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
24. SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
25. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
26. SMT. PUSHPA
D/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
GANTAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI AND TALUK,
ERSTWHILE BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 560064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VACHAN H U.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r)
R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
19.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.9 IN OS.NO.687/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
MFA No. 8432 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 8437 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The above appeals are filed under Order XLIII Rule
1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 by the
defendant No.26 calling in question the common
order dated 19.11.2024 passed in O.S. No.687/2015
by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMVC.,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru2, whereunder
I.As. No.8 and 9 filed by the plaintiff have been
allowed and the defendant No.26 has been restrained
from changing the nature or alienating the suit
schedule property till disposal of the suit.
2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present
appeals are that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff
instituted a suit in O.S. No.687/2015 seeking for a
direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed
by accepting the balance sale consideration. The
Hereinafter referred to as, 'CPC'
Hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
HC-KAR
plaintiff claims to be an agreement holder from the
defendants No.1 to 25 vide agreement dated
18.10.2010, whereunder the plaintiff has agreed to
purchase the suit property for a total sale
consideration of Rs.22,10,000/-. The defendant
No.26 is the purchaser of the suit property from
defendants No.1 to 25 under registered sale deed
dated 13.02.2023.
3. In the suit, defendants No.1 to 25 were arrayed as
parties at the time of filing the suit and subsequently
the defendant No.26 was impleaded pursuant to
order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiff filed I.A. No.8 under Order XXXIX Rule 1
and 2 of the CPC to restrain the proposed defendant
No.26 from altering the nature of the suit property.
The plaintiff also filed I.A. No.9 under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the defendant No.26
from alienating the suit property. The defendant
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
HC-KAR
No.26 objected to the said applications. The Trial
Court, by order dated 19.11.2024 allowed I.As. No.8
and 9 and passed the following -
"ORDER
I.As. No.8 and 9 filed by the plaintiff
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w. Section
151 of CPC is allowed.
Consequently, the defendant No.26 is
restrained from changing the nature or
alienating the suit schedule property till
disposal of the suit."
5. Being aggrieved, the present appeals are filed by the
defendant No.26.
6. Heard learned counsel, Sri.Anjaneya A.B. for the
appellant/defendant No.26 and learned Senior
Counsel, Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, appearing along with
the learned counsel Sri.Vachan H.U. for the
respondent No.1/plaintiff.
7. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that although the plaintiff filed the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
HC-KAR
suit in the year 2015, upto the year 2023 even the
suit summons were not served on defendants No.1 to
25. Reliance is placed on order dated 25.09.2023
passed by the Trial Court to contend that only on the
said date suit summons were issued to defendants
No.1 to 25. It is further contended that the
defendant No.26 has been impleaded pursuant to
I.A. No.7 filed on 06.10.2023. Hence, it is contended
that defendant No.26 was unaware of the pendency
of the suit. Further various contentions are sought
to be putforth by the learned counsel for the
appellant with regard to the right, title and interest
of defendants No.1 to 25 over the suit property and
as to the nature of the right that could be asserted
by the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of sale
dated 18.10.2010.
8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent
No.1 seeks to justify the order passed by the Trial
Court and contends that the sale deed dated
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
HC-KAR
13.02.2023 under which the defendant No.26 claims
to have purchased the suit property itself is void, by
virtue of Section 7A of the Karnataka Village Offices
Abolition Act, 1961. It is further contended that the
Trial Court having passed an equitable order, the
same is not liable to be interfered by this Court in the
present appeals.
9. The submissions of both the learned counsels have
been considered and the material on record have
been perused. The question that arises for
consideration is, "Whether the order dated
19.11.2024 passed by the Trial Court on I.As. No.8
and 9 is liable to be interfered with?"
10. The relevant facts are undisputed inasmuch as the
plaintiff claims under the agreement of sale dated
18.10.2010 and has filed this suit seeking for specific
performance of the same. The suit property is the
subject matter of the property under the said
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
HC-KAR
agreement of sale dated 18.10.2010. The defendant
No.26 is the purchaser of the suit property vide
registered sale deed dated 13.02.2023.
11. The rights inter se between the plaintiff and
defendant No.26 vis-à-vis the suit property is the
matter of consideration and adjudication before the
Trial Court and no finding can be recorded with
regard to the same in the present appeals.
12. Insofar as the consideration of the order that has
been passed under I.As. No.8 and 9, suffice to note
that even under the agreement dated 18.10.2010
and the averments in the plaint, it is not the case of
the plaintiff that they have been put in possession of
the suit property. Having regard to the fact that the
defendant No.26 has entered into a registered sale
deed dated 13.02.2023, whereunder it is
categorically stated that possession of the suit
property has been handed over to defendant No.26
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
HC-KAR
and in view of the assertion of the defendant No.26
that the revenue entries have been changed in his
favour consequent to the registered sale deed dated
13.02.2023, for the purpose of consideration of
I.As.No.8 and 9 it will have to be construed that
defendant No.26 is in possession of the suit property.
13. The rights inter se between the plaintiff and
defendant No.26 vis-à-vis the suit property is the
subject matter of consideration before the Trial Court
in the suit. Pending consideration of the same, if the
defendant No.26 is permitted to deal with the
property, the same would create third party rights
and lead to multiplicity of pleadings.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
taking advantage of the order dated 19.11.2024
passed on I.As.No.8 and 9 by the Trial Court, the
plaintiff is attempting to interfere with the possession
of the suit property of defendant No.26.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
HC-KAR
15. It is relevant to note here that in the present appeals
this Court vide order dated 24.12.2024 granted stay
of the order dated 19.11.2024. Thereafter vide order
dated 29.04.2025 this Court directed both the parties
to maintain status quo of physical nature of the land
as on the said date till the next date of hearing.
16. The Trial Court while considering the applications
restrained the defendant No.26 from changing the
nature or alienating the suit schedule property till
disposal of the suit. The said order passed by the
Trial Court is just and proper and the appellant has
failed to demonstrate that the said order is in any
manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by
the present Court in the present appeals.
17. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the
question framed for consideration is answered partly
in the affirmative.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18879
HC-KAR
18. Having regard to the prima facie finding recorded
hereinabove, that the defendant No.26 is in
possession of the suit property, the above appeals
are disposed of by directing that the plaintiff is also
restrained from interfering with the possession of the
suit property by defendant No.26.
19. The observations made by the Trial Court vide order
dated 19.11.2024 as well as by this Court in the
present appeals are only for consideration of I.As.
No.8 and 9. The Trial Court shall adjudicate upon the
suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the
said orders and rights and contentions of both parties
are left open.
20. Needless to state that the parties shall co-operate
with the Trial Court to adjudicate the suit as
expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
HNM
