Bangalore District Court
Rama Jagdish vs Kirtana S Madhav on 1 August, 2025
1
O.S.No.3217/2022
KABC010118232022
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY: (CCH-56)
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025
PRESENT
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU, M.A., LL.M.
LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
O.S. No. 3217 / 2022
PLAINTIFF/S SMT.RAMA JAGDISH
W/O JAGDISH A.L.
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDIG AT NO.560,
PARSWA SADAN, 1ST FLOOR,
JAYANAGAR 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
20TH MAIN, 36TH CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
(BY SRI.RAVI, ADV.)
Versus
DEFENDANT/s SMT.KIRTANA S. MADHA
W/O M.V.PRASHANTH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDIG AT NO.560,
PARSWA SADAN, 1ST FLOOR,
JAYANAGAR 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
2
O.S.No.3217/2022
20TH MAIN, 36TH CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
(BY SRI.H.S.S..ADV.)
Date of Institution of the 22.04.2022
suit
Nature of the Suit Suit for Permanent
Injunction
Date of commencement of 07.02.2024
recording of evidence
Date on which the 01.08.2025
judgment was pronounced
Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 03 10
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction praying to pass decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their henchmen, agents, PA holders, servants or any one claiming through or under her from selling suit schedule property till the lease due amount of Rs.24 lakhs is paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of property, area of the Apartment and utilities No.560, Parswa Sadan, Flat No.301, situated at Jayanagar, 4 th T-Block, 20th Main, 36th 3 O.S.No.3217/2022 Cross, Bengaluru - 560 041, Approximately 1700.00 sq.ft. consisting of two bedrooms, hall, kitchen, three toilets, and utility area along with one car parking facility as provided in the parking lot.
2. The plaint averments, briefly stated as follows.
The plaintiff had entered into rental / lease agreement with the defendant for a period of 36 months beginning from 01.06.2016 for the lease of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff had give a sum of Rs.24 lakhs to the defendant towards a stipulated one time lease amount which was refundable at the time of handing over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff to the defendant as per rental / lease agreement. On completion of lease agreement period, the defendant agreed to return the lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff handed over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property along with keys of the premises to the defendant. Hence, the defendant promised for repayment of lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs. For 4 O.S.No.3217/2022 repayment of the said amount the defendant issued undated cheque bearing No.064092 drawn on SBI, Dollars Colony branch, Bengaluru in favour of the plaintiff. There was a handwritten note on behind the said cheque saying that 'Paid towards payment of lease amount received for flat No.301 of 'Parswa Sadan'. The defendant who issued such cheque requested the plaintiff not to present undated cheque bearing No.064092 for some time. Hence, the plaintiff in good faith obliged to wait. Thereafter the defendant intimated the plaintiff to present the cheque on 27.11.2019. Hence, as per instruction of the defendant, the plaintiff presented the said cheque bearing No.064092 for Rs.24 lakhs dated 27.11.2019 to her SBI, MS Building branch, for encashment. But the said cheque dishonoured with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient". The defendant has mischievously, intentionally, deliberately and with malafide intention issued cheque bearing No.064092 dated 27.11.2019, knowing very well that the said cheque on presentation would never honour because the defendant is not having sufficient fund in her account. 5
O.S.No.3217/2022 Due to the said act of the defendant, the plaintiff has suffered loss of Rs.24 lakhs. The plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 06.12.2019 u/S.138 of NI Act to the defendant, demanding to pay cheque amount of Rs.24 lakhs along with interest. But the defendant has failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, the plaintiff has filed complaint against the defendant for the offence punishable u/S.138 of NI Act before the 15 th ACMM, Bengaluru, which came to be registered as C.C.No.1369/2020. Now the case is pending. After the plaintiff vacated the plaint schedule premises the defendant occupied the same. The defendant was residing in the said premises till 01.03.2022. The defendant vacated the premises on 01.03.2022. Now the defendant trying to alienate / sell the plaint schedule premises. From the available source the plaintiff came to know that every day around 8 - 10 people along with defendant are visiting to the plaint schedule property with an intention to purchase the same. Other than, the plaint schedule property the defendant is not having any other properties. The suit property is the only property 6 O.S.No.3217/2022 available to the plaintiff in order to get her money of Rs.24 lakhs back from the defendant. If the defendant alienated / sold the suit schedule property, the plaintiff never get back her lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs back from the defendant. The defendant also not paid the electricity bill and water bill and maintenance bill which clearly shows that the defendant is only want of money. The cause of action to file the suit arose on 01.03.2022, when the defendant vacated the plaint schedule premises and arose on different dates when around 8 - 10 people along with defendant visited to the plaint schedule property in order to purchase the same. Hence, the plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.
3. The defendant entered appearance by engaging her counsel and resisted claim of the plaintiff by filing her written statement which is briefly stated as follows.
The rental / lease agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for a period of 36 months beginning from 01.06.2016 with respect to plaint schedule properties is admitted. But all other averments 7 O.S.No.3217/2022 made in para 3 and 4 of the plaint are denied as false. The contention of the plaintiff is that she has handed over the vacant possession of the premises along with keys to the defendant and then the defendant promised to repay the lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs are all denied as false. Issuance of cheque bearing No.064092 by the defendant to the plaintiff towards repayment of the lease amount is denied as false. The defendant had paid full lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the plaintiff at the time of handing over the possession of the schedule property by the plaintiff to the defendant. The contention of the plaintiff is that, after the defendant handed over the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, the defendant neglected to renovate the premises, hence, the plaintiff spent Rs.5 lakhs to renovate premises are all denied as false. All the averments made in para 10 to 15 of the plaint are false. There is no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, on these among other grounds, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8
O.S.No.3217/2022
4. The plaintiff has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the defendant.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed in the suit.
1. Whether the defendant proves that, she has repaid the lease amount of Rs.24,00,000/- to the plaintiff as averred in her written statement?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the reliefs as sought for in the plaint?
3. What order or decree?
6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and documents at Ex.P1 to P6 are marked. Despite opportunity given to the defendant, the defendant not stepped into witness box and also not examined any witnesses.
7. I have heard arguments on the side of the learned counsel plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant who filed his written arguments relied on the following judgments.
9
O.S.No.3217/2022
1. 2012 SCC ALL 1876 (STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTEHR VS. V. TARA SINGH JAISWALA).
2. (1988)2 SCC 77 (SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. RAM PRAKASH AND OTHERS).
3. 2000 (II) CTC 417 (K.S. BALASUBRAMANIAM VS. S. MUNUSWAMY).
4. RFA NO.1489 OF 2017 (P. KRISHNAMACHARI VS. T.N. THIMMARAJACHAR) (HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA)
5. CRL.NO.952 OF 2021 (JAI SAI RAM STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. RAMESH SINGLA) (HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA).
8. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the Negative.
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : As per final order, for the following.
REASONS
9. ISSUES NO.1: Issue No.1 framed casting burden on the defendant to prove that, she has repaid the lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the plaintiff as averred in her written statement. In order to prove issue No.1, the defendant has not stepped into witness box and also not examined any witnesses and not produced any documents. The plaintiff who examined herself as PW1 in her affidavit filed for examination in-chief has 10 O.S.No.3217/2022 reiterated the plaint averment. She has deposed that she had entered into rental / lease agreement with the defendant for a period of 36 months beginning from 01.06.2016 with respect to suit schedule property. She had given sum of Rs.24 lakhs to the defendant with a condition that the defendant shall refund the same at the time of handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant. PW1 has deposed that when she handed over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, the defendant issued undated cheque bearing No.064092 drawn on SBI, Dollars Colony branch, Bengaluru. The defendant requested her not to present the cheque immediately. Thereafter on 27.1.2019 the defendant agreed to present the cheque to the bank. Hence, when she presented the cheque to the bank for encashment, the cheque dishonored with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'. Thereafter she caused legal notice dated 06.12.2019 calling the defendant to pay the cheque amount. But the defendant has failed to pay the amount. Hence, she has initiated the proceedings under NI Act before the 15 th 11 O.S.No.3217/2022 ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.1369/2022. PW1 has deposed that the defendant occupied the suit premises, thereafter vacated the same. She came to know that the defendant trying to alienate the suit schedule premises or create charge over it. Hence, in order to safeguard herself for recovery of amount she compelled to file the present suit in order to restrain the defendant from carrying out his illegal action over the suit schedule property.
10. The documents at Ex.P1 to P6 are all marked through PW1. Ex.P1 is certified copy of lease agreement dated 28.10.2016. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the legal notice dated 06.12.2019 issued u/S.138 of NI Act to the defendant. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment for having sent and served the notice to the defendant. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the cheque bearing No.064092 dated 27.11.2019 drawn on SBI for Rs.24 lakhs. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the endorsement issued by the Bank, to show that the cheque dishonoured for funds insufficient. Ex.P6 is the 12 O.S.No.3217/2022 certified copy of complaint filed by the present plaintiff against the defendant in PCR No.809/2020 before the 15th ACMM, Bengaluru to take action against her for cheque bounce u/S.138 of NI Act.
11. During the course of cross examination of PW 1 she has deposed that she filed suit for recovery of lease amount. She has deposed that she has paid court fees of Rs.60,000/- in this case. She has deposed that she paid lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the defendant. She has denied the suggestion that in the month of April 2018 the defendant issued her cheque. She has denied the suggestion that after she presented the cheque of the defendant, the defendant repaid some amount to her. She has denied suggestion that the defendant is not the owner of the suit premises. She has denied the suggestion that she had not paid lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the defendant.
12. Thus, on perusal of the cross examination portion of PW1, nothing is elicited from her mouth to show that the 13 O.S.No.3217/2022 defendant had repaid the lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the plaintiff. In the cross examination of PW1, the defendant has not denied the contents of Ex.P1 lease agreement. The defendant has not denied the issuance of cheque in favour of the plaintiff. She has not denied the document Ex.P2 copy of legal notice, Ex.P3 copy of postal receipt and postal acknowledgment and Ex.P6 copy of complaint filed u/S.138 of NI Act, and Ex.P4 copy of cheque bearing No.064092. Mere some suggestions made to PW 1 that the defendant repaid some amount is not sufficient to hold that the defendant had repaid the lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the plaintiff. In Ex.P1 rental / lease agreement there is clear mention that the defendant received sum of Rs.24 lakhs as one time lease amount from the plaintiff. It is also mentioned in Ex.P1 that lessee made payment in cheque drawn on SBI, M.S. Building branch, Bengaluru bearing No.560966 dated 10.06.2016. In Ex.P1 rental / lease agreement it is clearly mentioned that the amount shall carry no interest, amount shall be returned to the lessee / tenant subject to deduction of damages / repair cost as 14 O.S.No.3217/2022 estimated / agreed at the time of lessee vacating the premises. The end of term is mentioned as upon expiry of agreement. Time of lease / rental agreement shall be for 36 months beginning from 01.06.2016. The contents of the document Ex.P1 is not denied by the defendant in the cross examination of PW1. The defendant who has taken contention that she has repaid the lease amount to the plaintiff in order to substantiate this contention has not stepped into witness box and not produced any documents. In the cross examination of PW1 nothing is elicited from her mouth to show that the defendant has repaid the lease amount to the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to prove issue No.1. Hence, I answered issue No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
13. ISSUE NO.2: The plaintiff has filed this suit for the for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her henchmen, agents, PA holders, servants or any one claiming through or under her from selling suit schedule property till the lease due amount of Rs.24 lakhs is paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The entire 15 O.S.No.3217/2022 case of the plaintiff mainly revolves upon the document Ex.P1 rental / lease agreement. The term of lease was for 36 months beginning from 01.06.2016. The plaintiff had made payment of Rs.24 lakhs as one time lease amount of the plaint schedule premises to the defendant. The defendant has not seriously disputed regarding receipt of lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs from the plaintiff. But the defendant has taken contention that she has repaid the lease amount to the plaintiff. In view of my findings on issue No.1, the defendant has failed to prove that she has repaid the lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the plaintiff.
14. Now the question is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from selling the suit schedule premises till lease due amount of Rs.24 lakhs is paid by the defendant to the plaintiff is to be considered. During the course of cross examination of PW 1, she has deposed that the defendant due a sum of Rs.24 lakhs payable towards lease amount. She has deposed that she has 16 O.S.No.3217/2022 filed the suit for recovery of amount by paying the court fees of Rs.60,000/-. But the pleadings in this case is quite contrary to the deposition of PW1 made in her cross examination. PW1 in her affidavit for examination in- chief has deposed that she has handed over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant. The defendant has issued undated cheque bearing No.064092 drawn on SBI, Dollars Colony Branch, Bengaluru with a note written on the back of the cheque saying that the same is paid towards repayment of lease amount received for Flat No.301. PW1 has deposed that she presented the cheque issued by the defendant on 27.11.2019 to the bank for encashment, but the said cheque was returned by the banker with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter she has issued legal notice dated 06.12.2019 calling the defendant to pay the cheque amount. Since the defendant has failed to pay the cheque amount the plaintiff has filed the cheque bounce case in C.C.No.1369/2022 against the defendant before the 15th ACMM, Bengaluru and the same is pending for consideration. Thus, the oral evidence of 17 O.S.No.3217/2022 PW1, which is supported by the documents, Ex.P2 to 6 would go to show that the plaintiff has already initiated criminal proceedings i.e., cheque bounce case against the defendant. Even though PW1 in her cross examination has deposed that she has filed this suit for recovery of the lease amount and paid the court fees. There is no such prayer in this suit for recovery of money.
15. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff had paid the lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the defendant which is repayable on vacating the schedule premises. The plaintiff had vacated the suit schedule premises but the defendant has failed to repay the lease amount. The defendant instead of repaying the lease amount trying to alienate the suit schedule property by way of sale to the third parties. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit in order to restrain the defendant from selling the suit schedule property till the lease amount is paid to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that this suit for the relief of permanent injunction to retrain the defendant 18 O.S.No.3217/2022 from selling the suit schedule property is not maintainable. He argued that since it is the contention of the plaintiff is that in order to recover the lease amount she has filed this suit, she should have filed the suit for recovery of money and not suit for permanent injunction. He argued that the provision in Specific Relief Act, Section 38 deals with, when injunction can be granted. The provision u/S.41 of Specific Relief Act deals with, when the injunction shall be refused. He argued that the relief of permanent injunction sought by the plaintiff is prohibited u/S/41 (h) of Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff in order to avoid to pay the court fees, instead of filing the suit for recovery of money, filed this suit for permanent injunction. He argued that, in case of recovery of money the plaintiff should have valued the suit u/S.21 of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act. But in the present case, the plaintiff has valued the suit u/S/26(c) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act and paid court fees of Rs.25/- only. The learned counsel for the defendant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reported in 2012 SCC ALL 1876 19 O.S.No.3217/2022 (STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER VS. V. TARA SINGH JAISWALA), to contend that when there is an efficacious remedy the suit for injunction is not maintainable, which is barred u/S.41 (h) of Specific Relief Act. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1988) 2 SCC 77 (SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. RAM PRAKASH AND OTHERS), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the suit by coparceners for permanent injunction restraining Kartha of joint Hindu family from alienating the joint family property in pursuance of the sale agreement with a third party not maintainable. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras reported in 2000 (II) CTC 417 (K.S. BALASUBRAMANIAM VS. S. MUNUSWAMY), wherein also held that the defendant filed an application to try the issue regarding maintainability of suit as preliminary issue and on same being dismissed, preferred Civil Revision Petition and Revision was also dismissed, such petition does not constitute res judicata for considering prima facie case - Principles governing grant of injunction and principles governing trial of an issue as 20 O.S.No.3217/2022 preliminary issue are totally different - Court can therefore find out whether the suit itself is maintainable and proceed to consider grant of injunction. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA NO.1489 of 2017 decided on 18.08.2023 in the case of P. KRISHNAMACHARI VS. T.N. THIMMARAJACHAR, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, when the plaintiff had efficacious remedy by filing a suit for specific performance has field suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the properties, such suit is not maintainable in the light of Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana Court in CR.No.952/2021, wherein there is decision regarding court fees.
16. I have appreciated rival contentions and perused the entire records. As I already noted that the plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from selling the suit schedule property till lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs is paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. But during the course of cross 21 O.S.No.3217/2022 examination of PW1, she has deposed that she has filed this suit for recovery of lease amount by paying the court fees of Rs.60,000/-. Such deposition of PW1 is contrary to her pleadings. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed by her can be seen. Provision under Section 41 of Specific Relief Act is with regard to injunction when refused. The provision u/S/41(h) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 which reads as follows.
"41 Injunction when refused - An injunction cannot be granted - xxxx
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust xxxxx"
17. Thus, on plain reading of provision u/S/41(h) of Specific Relief Act, it is very clear that when there is efficacious remedy available to the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. In the present case, intention of the plaintiff can be gathered from cross examination of PW1. In her cross examination PW1 has clearly deposed that she has filed this suit for recovery of money by paying court fee 22 O.S.No.3217/2022 of Rs.60,000/-. But on actual sense, the plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from selling the suit schedule property till lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot seek such relief to restrain the defendant from selling the suit schedule property till defendant repays the lease amount to the plaintiff. Provision u/S.10 of Transfer of Property Act, reads as follows.
10. Condition restraining alienation.-- Where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under him:
Provided that property may be transferred to or for the benefit of a women (not being a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist), so that she shall not have power during her marriage to transfer or charge the same or her beneficial interest therein."
18. Thus, provision u/S.10 of Transfer of Property Act prohibits restrain and transfer, no person can put any condition preventing the owner of the property to exercise his right of alienation over the property. As I 23 O.S.No.3217/2022 already noted, the entire suit of the plaintiff revolves on Ex.P1 rental / lease agreement. The plaintiff and defendant cannot go beyond the agreement entered into between them. In Ex.P1 rental / lease agreement there is no such terms and conditions that the lessor cannot alienate / sell the schedule property after lessee vacated the schedule premises. When there is no such agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule premises to third parties after the plaintiff vacated the schedule premises the court cannot grant permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit schedule premises.
19. The learned counsel for the defendant also argued that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that the defendant is the owner of the property.
There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant. The plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that the ownership of the defendant over the suit schedule property. No doubt, on 24 O.S.No.3217/2022 perusal of Ex.P1 there is lessor and lessee relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. That does not presupposes that the defendant is the absolute owner of the schedule premises. In order to alienate the suit schedule premises, by way of sale the defendant must have ownership or right over the plaint schedule property. In the present suit the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that the defendant is absolute owner of the suit schedule property. When there is no documents to show that the defendant is absolute owner of the suit schedule property, there is no meaning to restrain the defendant from alienating or selling the suit schedule property till lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
20. The provision u/S.41(h) of Specific Relief Act squarely applies to the present case. The entire plaint would go to show that the plaintiff intends to recover the lease amount of Rs.24 lakhs from the defendant, but the plaintiff has not sought for the relief of recovery of money by paying the court fees as required u/S.21 of 25 O.S.No.3217/2022 Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act. Instead of same, the plaintiff by valuing suit u/S.26 (c) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act and by paying the court fees of Rs.25/- filed this suit for the relief of permanent injunction which is not maintainable.
21. The principles of the decision cited by the learned counsel for the defendant which are reported in 1. 2012 SCC Online ALL 1876 (STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTEHR VS. V. TARA SINGH JAISWALA), 2. (1988)2 SCC 77 (SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. RAM PRAKASH AND OTHERS),
3. 2000 (II) CTC 417 (K.S. BALASUBRAMANIAM VS. S. MUNUSWAMY), 4. RFA No.1489 OF 2017 (P. KRISHNAMACHARI VS. T.N. THIMMARAJACHAR) (HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA) and 5. CRL.NO.952 OF 2021 (JAI SAI RAM STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. RAMESH SINGLA) (HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA) are aptly applicable to the present suit.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited decision reported (1988)2 SCC 77 (SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER 26 O.S.No.3217/2022 VS. RAM PRAKASH AND OTHERS), clearly held that the suit by coparceners for permanent injunction restraining the Kartha of joint Hindu family from alienating the joint family property in pursuance of sale and agreement with a third party not maintainable. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the cited decision in RFA NO.1489 OF 2017 (P. KRISHNAMACHARI VS. T.N. THIMMARAJACHAR), has clearly held that when the plaintiff had efficacious remedy to file the suit for specific performance, the suit for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the property is not maintainable. The principles of these two cited decisions are aptly applicable to the present case. When there is efficacious remedy to the plaintiff to file suit for recovery of lease amount, the plaintiff who filed this suit for the relief of permanent injunction is barred u/S.41(h) of Specific Relief Act, and is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not the owner of the plaint schedule property in order to seek the permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain her from selling the suit schedule property. If at all the defendant in order to defraud the plaintiff 27 O.S.No.3217/2022 intends to alienate the suit schedule property by selling the suit schedule property or creating the charge over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff should have filed suit for recovery of lease amount and in that suit she should have sought the relief for the attachment before the judgment u/Or.XXXVIII R.5 of CPC. Without filing any such suit, for recovery of lease amount by paying necessary court fees, the plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction and paid the court fees at Rs.25/- by valuing suit u/S.26(c) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act. Admittedly, the plaintiff has already filed criminal proceedings of cheque bounce case against the defendant and the same is pending or consideration in C.C.No.1369/2020 before the 15th ACMM, Bengaluru. When there is remedy available to the plaintiff to file suit for recovery of lease amount, the present suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from selling the suit schedule property till lease amount is paid by the defendant to the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in this 28 O.S.No.3217/2022 suit. Hence, I answered issue No.2 in the NEGATIVE.
23. ISSUE NO.3: In the result I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby DISMISSED. Parties shall bear their own cost.
Draw decree, accordingly.
(Dictated to SG-I, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on the 1 st day of AUGUST 2025).
(MOHAN PRABHU), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF/S:
PW1 Sri.Rama Jagadish
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT/S:
NIL
29
O.S.No.3217/2022
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF/S:
Ex.P-1 Certified copy of lease agreement.
Ex.P-2 Copy of legal notice. Ex.P-3 Copy of postal receipt and acknowledgment Ex.P-4 Copy of cheque bearing No.064092 Ex.P-5 Copy of endorsement issued by the Bank. Ex.P6 Copy of complaint filed u/S.138 of NI Act.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT/S NIL LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.