Karnataka High Court
M/S Saha Developers And Promoters vs Smt Parmila M on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44181-DB
COMAP No. 359 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 359 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S SAHA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETORS,
SRI. SHREEKAANTH DAAS,
S/O. LATE SRI. ASHWATHNARAYAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO. 1112, 2ND FLOOR, G AND H BLOCK,
GAGANACHUMBI DOUBLE ROAD,
KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 023.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
RUPA V
Location:
High Court 1. SMT. PARMILA M
Of W/O. LATE T. SHIVANNA,
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. SMT. ANUSHA. S
D/O. LATE T. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 ARE
R/O NO. 40A, 7TH CROSS,
SHIVANANDANAGARA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44181-DB
COMAP No. 359 of 2024
HC-KAR
NAGARABAVI,
BENGALURU CITY-560 072.
3. SRI. BASAVARAJU
S/O. LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O. NO. 1321, 1ST CROSS,
SIDDARTHANAGARA,
KURUBARAHALLI,
NAZARBAD MOHALLA,
MYSURU CITY-570 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J M ANIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 & R2 SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION)
THIS COMAP / COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 13(1A) OF COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, 2015
PRAYING THAT TO CALL FOR RECORDS INCOM.,O.S.
NO.245/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT MYSURU IN COM., O.S. NO.245/2023 DATED 29/7/2024
AND ALLOW THE IA., NO 2/2023 AS PRAYED AND ETC.,
THIS COMAP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
29.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44181-DB
COMAP No. 359 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This commercial appeal is filed under Section 13(1A)
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging the order
dated 29.07.2024 passed on I.A.No.II filed by the
appellant-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, 'CPC') in
Com.O.S.No.245/2023 by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for short 'the Trial Court').
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this
appeal are:
The appellant filed a suit in Com.O.S.No.245/2023
seeking relief of specific performance of the agreement of
sale dated 26.02.2020 in favour of the appellant. In the
said suit, the appellant filed an application in I.A.No.II
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking
interim relief of injunction against the respondent No.3
and seeking to restrain the respondent No.3 from
NC: 2025:KHC:44181-DB
HC-KAR
alienating the suit schedule property in any manner until
the disposal of the suit. The Trial Court after considering
the submissions advanced on both sides, dismissed
I.A.No.II mainly on the ground that the respondent No.3 is
a bona fide purchaser and any injunction restraining him
from alienating the suit schedule property would amount
to interference in the right of enjoyment of the property of
the respondent No.3. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.
3. Sri.K.R.Lingaraju, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant/petitioner submits that the Trial Court has
committed a grave error in appreciating the law and the
facts of the case. It is submitted that the Trial Court has
erroneously considered the respondent No.3 as a bona fide
purchaser and dismissed I.A.No.II. The question with
regard to respondent No.3 is a bona fide purchaser or
purchaser pendente lite is required to be considered in a
full-fledged trial. It is further submitted that the Trial Court
has erred in stating that the agreement of sale is an
unregistered document and does not have much credence
NC: 2025:KHC:44181-DB
HC-KAR
in law, as according to Section 49 of the Registration Act,
1908, even an unregistered document can be admitted as
evidence and used to corroborate a collateral transaction
as such as in a suit for specific performance. It is also
submitted that if the relief sought in the application is not
granted, it would cause irreparable injury and hardship to
the appellant and if the appellant succeeds in the suit and
meantime the respondent No.3 further alienates the
property, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by granting the relief
sought in I.A.No.II filed before the trial Court.
4. Per contra, Sri. J.M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3 supports the impugned
order of the Trial Court and submits that the respondent
No.3 is defendant No.3 in the suit who has purchased the
property under the registered sale deed dated 13.06.2023
by paying considerations to respondent Nos.1 and 2 /
defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted that the
respondent No.3 is in possession and enjoyment of the
NC: 2025:KHC:44181-DB
HC-KAR
suit schedule property from the date of purchase and him
being the bona fide purchaser, cannot be denied right to
enjoy the property at the instance of the appellant -
agreement holder. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 and meticulously perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.
The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the impugned order dated
29.07.2024 passed by the Trial Court on
I.A.No.II needs any interference?"
6. The above point is answered in the negative for
the following reasons.
7. The material placed on record discloses that
respondent No.1 executed an unregistered agreement of
sale dated 26.02.2020 in favour of the appellant in respect
NC: 2025:KHC:44181-DB
HC-KAR
of the suit schedule property, for a total sale consideration
of Rs.28,50,000/-. It is the appellant's case that, in
pursuance of the said agreement, respondent No.1
received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance sale
consideration by cheque and that further payments were
made on 03.10.2020 and 09.12.2021, thereby aggregating
to Rs.19,00,000/-. The appellant claims to have always
been ready and willing to pay the balance sale
consideration and had called upon respondents Nos.1 and
2 to execute a regular sale deed. However, despite such
readiness, respondents Nos.1 and 2 failed to execute the
sale deed and, suppressing the existence of the earlier
unregistered agreement, proceeded to execute a
registered sale deed dated 13.06.2023 in favour of
respondent No.3.
8. With these assertions, the appellant instituted
the suit and sought an order of temporary injunction
restraining respondent No.3 from further alienating or
encumbering the suit schedule property during the
NC: 2025:KHC:44181-DB
HC-KAR
pendency of the proceedings. During the course of
arguments, it was urged on behalf of respondent No.3 that
he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration,
having purchased the property under a duly registered
sale deed with the intention to develop the property.
Taking note of these submissions, we are of the view that
the apprehension expressed by the appellant regarding the
likelihood of further alienation at this stage does not
appear to be well-founded.
9. It is not in dispute that the appellant places
reliance upon an unregistered agreement of sale dated
26.02.2020, whereas respondent No.3's title emanates
from a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2023, which,
prima facie, confers legal ownership and possession. The
transaction in favour of respondent No.3 took place more
than three years after the alleged unregistered agreement
with the appellant. The record, however, is silent as to any
concrete steps taken by the appellant during the
intervening period to enforce or assert his rights under the
NC: 2025:KHC:44181-DB
HC-KAR
said agreement. The delay and inaction on the part of the
appellant are relevant factors that draw into question the
bona fides and urgency of his claim. These competing
contentions and the authenticity of the agreement of sale
dated 26.02.2020 are matters that necessitate detailed
consideration and evidence at trial.
10. The Trial Court, upon a careful appreciation of
the pleadings and material, recorded a finding that the
appellant failed to establish a prima facie case warranting
injunction. Respondent No.3, being the holder of a
registered title and presently in possession, prima facie
enjoys a superior legal right over the appellant at this
interlocutory stage. Consequently, the balance of
convenience tilts in favour of respondent No.3, as any
restraint order would prejudice his rights arising from a
registered conveyance. As regards the element of
irreparable injury, it is well-settled that when adequate
legal remedies or monetary compensation are available in
the event the appellant ultimately succeeds in the suit, an
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44181-DB
HC-KAR
injunction should not ordinarily be granted. The Trial Court
has, therefore, exercised its discretion judiciously in
refusing interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. We find no infirmity, illegality,
or perversity in the said conclusion warranting interference
at this stage. It is made clear that the foregoing
observations are confined solely to the present
adjudication. No opinion has been expressed on the merits
of the issues pending determination in the suit.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any merit in this appeal, accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
