Karnataka High Court
M/S Sree Sai Land Developers Pvt Ltd vs Sri R Venkatesh on 11 March, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10338
MFA No. 1349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1349 OF 2025 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1354 OF 2025
IN MFA No. 1349/2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. SREE SAI LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.8,
CORPORATION MARK,
SUSHEELA ROAD, MAVALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI. B. R. DWARAKANATH
APPELLANT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
RAMYA D
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA AND:
1. SRI. R. VENKATESH
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA SHETTY,
AGED 65 YEARS,
R/AT PENT HOUSE, 7 HILLS,
SOHAN TOWERS, NO. 41/1,
30TH CROSS, SBI BANK BUILDING,
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
2. MR. C. PRASANNA
S/O MR. A. CHENNAIAH,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10338
MFA No. 1349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025
AGED 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1063,
8TH B CROSS ROAD,
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
GIRINAGAR, 2ND PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
3. MR. B.R. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O SRI. B. RAMAKRISHNAIAH,
AGED 75 YEARS,
R/AT NO. P 2, 4TH FLOOR,
34TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN ROAD.
1781 DEVAGIRI MEADOWS,
KADARENAHALLI PARK,
BSK 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
4. MR. T.V.T.PRAKASH
S/O MR.H. VEERANNA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1132, 18TH CROSS ROAD,
24TH MAIN ROAD, BSK II STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
5. SRI. K.L. VENKATESH BABU
S/O SRI. K.V. LAKSHMINARYA SETTY,
AGED 61 YEARS,
GENERAL MERCHANTS,
BAZAR ROAD,
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
6. DR. SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
S/O SRI. RAMA SHARMA,
AGED 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 7,
VIVEKANANDA STREET,
UDAY NAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 016.
7. SRI. B. NARENDRA BABU,
S/O SRI. BASAPPA,
AGED 41 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10338
MFA No. 1349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025
R/AT NO. 57/2, BUKKASAGARA VILLAGE,
BANNERAGHATTA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 083.
8. SRI. B. V. RAMAMURTHY
S/O SRI. B. VENKATASWAMY,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 453/9, 40TH CROSS,
2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 010
9. SRI. K.R. VISHWANATH GUPTA
S/O LATE. K. RAMACHANDRA GUPTA,
AGED 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 23, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
3RD CROSS,
MARUTHI EXTENSION,
SRIRAMPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 021
10. SRI. N. UDAYKUMAR
S/O SRI. NAGA MANICKAM CHETTIAR,
AGED 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 257, BAZAR STREET,
HARUR, CHARMAPURI (D)
TAMIL NADU - 636 903.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAYJOSHI SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. NAVEED AHMED ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 05.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN
O.S. NO. 1078/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DISMISSING IA
NO.2 FILED U/O. 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:10338
MFA No. 1349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025
IN MFA NO. 1354/2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. SREE SAI LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.8,
CORPORATION MARK,
SUSHEELA ROAD, MAVALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI. B. R. DWARAKANATH
APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R. VENKATESH
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA SHETTY,
AGED 65 YEARS,
R/AT PENT HOUSE, 7 HILLS,
SOHAN TOWERS, NO. 41/1,
30TH CROSS, SBI BANK BUILDING,
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
2. MR. C. PRASANNA
S/O MR. A. CHENNAIAH,
AGED 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1063,
8TH B CROSS ROAD,
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
GIRINAGAR, 2ND PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
3. MR. B.R. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O SRI. B. RAMAKRISHNAIAH,
AGED 75 YEARS,
R/AT NO. P 2, 4TH FLOOR,
34TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN ROAD.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:10338
MFA No. 1349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025
1781 DEVAGIRI MEADOWS,
KADARENAHALLI PARK,
BSK 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
4. MR. T.V.T.PRAKASH
S/O MR.H. VEERANNA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1132, 18TH CROSS ROAD,
24TH MAIN ROAD, BSK II STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 070.
5. SRI. K.L. VENKATESH BABU
S/O SRI. K.V. LAKSHMINARYA SETTY,
AGED 61 YEARS,
GENERAL MERCHANTS,
BAZAR ROAD,
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
6. DR. SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
S/O SRI. RAMA SHARMA,
AGED 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 7,
VIVEKANANDA STREET,
UDAY NAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 016.
7. SRI. B. NARENDRA BABU,
S/O SRI. BASAPPA,
AGED 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 57/2, BUKKASAGARA VILLAGE,
BANNERAGHATTA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 083.
8. SRI. B. V. RAMAMURTHY
S/O SRI. B. VENKATASWAMY,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 453/9, 40TH CROSS,
2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 010
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:10338
MFA No. 1349 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1354 of 2025
9. SRI. K.R. VISHWANATH GUPTA
S/O LATE. K. RAMACHANDRA GUPTA,
AGED 66 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 23, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
3RD CROSS,
MARUTHI EXTENSION,
SRIRAMPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 021
10. SRI. N. UDAYKUMAR
S/O SRI. NAGA MANICKAM CHETTIAR,
AGED 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 257, BAZAR STREET,
HARUR, CHARMAPURI (D)
TAMIL NADU - 636 903.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAYJOSHI SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. NAVEED AHMED ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2025 PASSED ON I.A.
NO. 1 IN O.S.NO. 1078/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL,
DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX
RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the plaintiff being
aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC
NC: 2025:KHC:10338
in OS.No.1078/2019 dated 05.02.2025 on the file of II
Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal.
2. The rank of the parties is referred to as per
their rankings before the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, defendant
No.1 is the Director of plaintiff's Company. There was an
agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 dated
22.11.1996 that the lands are purchased in the name of
defendant No.1, but money was paid by the plaintiff and
thereafter, getting conversion of land and after formation
of sites, agreed to transfer sites in favour of plaintiff's
Company. But thereafter, defendant No.1 had refused to
transfer sites/lands in favour of the plaintiff resulting into
filing of suit by the plaintiff seeking declaration and
permanent injunction.
4. The plaintiff had filed the above said I.A.Nos.1
and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of
CPC praying to restrain the defendants from interfering
with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC:10338
property and not to allow the lands/sites to be transferred
in favour of third parties, but the said applications were
rejected by the trial Court, on the reason that, though, the
agreement is dated 22.11.1996, but the suit is filed in the
year 2019, therefore, there is delay. Furthermore, by the
very claim that the plaintiff has failed to prove possession
over the land, therefore, dismissed the said applications as
the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case.
5. Upon considering the filing of suit as per the
plaint averments produced along with the appeal, the
entire framing of suit is touching upon the provisions of
the Benami Transaction Act, 1988. Making out of prima
facie should be always as per law, but not opposing the
law. The mutual agreement between the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 is according to their mutual
understanding. Therefore, when the entire suit may be in
the context of provisions of Benami Transactions Act,
NC: 2025:KHC:10338
therefore, the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie
case.
6. Furthermore, from the very pleadings of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff is not in possession of the property.
Therefore, when the plaintiff is not able to make out a
prima facie case, therefore, there is no need to make
interference in the order passed by the trial Court and that
the order passed by the trial court is correct.
7. At the most, if there is any violation of terms of
agreement dated 22.11.1996, then the plaintiff ought to
have filed the suit for recovery of amount paid. Therefore,
the reasons given by the trial Court are correct and
proper. Hence, there is no need to make interference in
the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, appeals are
liable to be dismissed. However, the trail court shall not be
influenced by the observations made above while
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10338
considering the suit on merits. The observations made
above are only for considering the instant appeals.
8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
(i) The appeals are dismissed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 05.02.2025 passed
on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC in
OS.No.1078/2019 on the file of II Addl. Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, is hereby
confirmed.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PB
