Karnataka High Court
Sharadhamma vs Kendra Upadhyayara Sangha on 26 April, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:17353
MFA No. 1118 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1118 OF 2025 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1 . SHARADHAMMA
W/O. LATE KARIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
2 . SHANTHAKUMARI. N.K
W/O. SRINIVAS,
D/O. LATE KARIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
3 . DIVYA JYOTHI.N.K
W/O. SOMASHEKHAR
D/O. LATE KARIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Digitally ALL ARE RESIDING AT
signed by
RAMYA D NO.34, ISEC MAIN ROAD,
Location: NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M.C. SHIVAKUMAR,
S/O CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A 70/2, MARIYAPPANAPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:17353
MFA No. 1118 of 2025
AND:
1. KENDRA UPADHYAYARA SANGHA
REP .BY ITS SECRETARY
O/A. NO.24, 2ND FLOOR,
SUBBARAMACHETTY ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
2. K.BASAVARAJU
S/O.KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.54,
BHIMAJYOTHINAGAR,
LIC COLONY,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
3. B.N.SHANKARAPPA
S/O. LATE. NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/A.NO.1271, 7TH CROSS,
4TH MAIN, 2ND PHASE,
1ST STAGE,
CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
4. AMITH GUPTA
S/O. ISHWAR CHAND,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
5. ISHWAR CHAND,
S/O. LATE. RAM CHAND,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
6. ANGOORI GUPTA
S/O.ISHWAR CHAND,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
ALL R/A.NO.1271,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:17353
MFA No. 1118 of 2025
NO.269,4TH MAIN ROAD,
NGEF LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE - 560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 AND ALSO
R4 TO R6 )
THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.1.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1
AND 2 IN O.S.NO.5748/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH NO.3), DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER
39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED
UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 09.01.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC by the plaintiffs and defendants respectively in O.S.No.5748/2024 by the Court of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.No.3), thereby, I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under -4- NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is dismissed and I.A.No.2 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC is allowed. Consequently, the order of status-quo granted on 14.08.2024 is vacated.
2. The rank of the parties is referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court for easy reference and convenience.
3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of declaration that the registered lease-cum-sale agreement dated 31.08.1999, sale deed dated 14.11.2002, registered sale deed dated 26.07.2017 and registered sale deed dated 28.06.2024 are illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs and consequently, for the relief of permanent injunction.
4. The plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for an order of temporary injunction by making out the case that one Kuntaramaiah and Siddaramaiah are own brothers. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 Kuntaramaiah has a daughter by name Gangamma and Siddaramaiah has three sons namely Ramaiah, Siddappa and Nanjappa and a daughter by name Putta Siddamma. The said Gangamma succeeded the estate of Kuntaramaiah after his death in respect of land in Survey No.1/5 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas and Survey No.1/7 measuring 00-28 guntas situated at Nagarabhavi village. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property No.145 measuring 30x40 is formed in Survey No.1/5. When this being the fact, the children of Siddaramaiah namely Ramaiah, Siddappa and Nanjappa and a daughter Putta Siddamma had executed General Power of Attorney and agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.1 - Kendra Upadhyayara Sangha.
5. The said defendant No.1 based on the above sale deeds started interference with the possession of Gangamma and accordingly, she filed the suit in O.S.No.2443/1984 for the relief of declaration to declare that she is the owner and having title in respect of lands in -6- NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 Survey Nos.1/5 and 1/7 and the said suit was decreed in her favour. The said judgment and decree was challenged before this Court in RFA.No.671/2005 and this Court allowed the said appeal and dismissed the suit. It is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.28193/2024 and Special Leave Appeal (c) No.19216/2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order of status quo. When this being the fact, it is submitted that defendant Nos.2 to 4 colluded with each other, created some documents and now defendant Nos.4 to 6 have purchased the schedule property and tried to put up construction. Therefore, with these facts pleaded in the plaint and in the application, prayed for grant of an order of temporary injunction.
6. On the other hand, it is the case of defendant Nos.4 to 6 that suit schedule property No.145 is formed in survey No.1/2 and therefore, it is not the subject matter in O.S.No.2443/1984. The land in survey No.1/2 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas was sold by the plaintiffs' ancestors -7- NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 under the registered sale deed dated 18.05.1966. The plaintiffs do not know exactly where the suit scheduled site is coming whether it is in survey No.1/5 or survey No.1/7 or survey No.1/2.
7. It is the case of defendant Nos.4 to 6 that on the said lands already a layout has been formed for more than four decades ago and suit schedule site No.145 is not situated either in survey No.1/5 or survey No.1/7 and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule site. It is further pleaded by the defendants that the land in Survey Nos.1/2, 1/3, 1/5 and 1/7, 2, 10, 50/1, 53, 54/1, 54/A, 54/B and 55/5 of Nagarbhavi village was purchased by defendant No.1 measuring totally 28.00 acres. Out of the above said land, Ramaiah, Siddappa and Nanjappa were owners of the land in Survey No.1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 and 1/7 and accordingly, they have entered into an agreement of sale along with GPA with defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 after forming a layout allotted the suit sites in favour of defendant No.2 on -8- NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 31.08.1999 and thereafter, defendant No.2 sold the schedule site in favour of defendant No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 14.11.2002 and thereafter, defendant No.3 sold the said suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6 under the registered sale deed dated 26.07.2017.
8. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 further stated that defendant No.1 again executed the sale deed with respect to suit schedule property by confirming the title in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6 on 28.06.2024. Thereafter, defendant Nos.4 to 6 have started construction after getting license and approval of the building plan from the concerned authority and completed construction of ground floor and first floor, construction of second floor is in progress. Therefore, filed the application i.e., I.A.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the order of status quo.
9. The trial Court upon the application filed i.e., I.A.No.1 by the plaintiffs has granted an order of status -9- NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 quo insofar as possession of suit schedule site is concerned. After filing application i.e., I.A.No.2 by defendant Nos.4 to 6 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, the said order of status quo was vacated by the impugned order. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs and allowing I.A.No.2 filed by the defendants, thereby, vacating the order of status quo, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
10. Heard the argument from both sides and perused the records.
11. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, pleaded in the plaint and materials produced, the plaintiffs have made out a prime facie case?
(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, whether the plaintiffs have balance of convenience?
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiffs would suffer injury or loss?
(iv) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant Nos.4 to 6 would prove that if an order of temporary injunction is granted, they would suffer loss or injury?
12. Sri V.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs are the owners of land in survey Nos.1/5 and 1/7 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas and 00-28 guntas respectively. The suit schedule property bearing No.145 is formed in survey No.1/5. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.2443/1984 for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was decreed by the trial Court and subsequently, it was reversed by this Court in RFA.No.671/2005, against the said judgment and decree passed by this Court, now the plaintiffs preferred Special leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is pending consideration and in the said Special leave
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order of status quo insofar as possession is concerned.
13. When this being the fact, defendant Nos.4 to 6 have purchased the property in violation of an order of status quo granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the said transaction is void ab-initio as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, submitted that, though, defendant Nos.4 to 6 were not parties in O.S.NO.2443/1984 and RFA.No.671/2005, but vendor of defendant Nos.4 to 6 was the party in the said suit. Therefore, the order of status quo passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on defendant Nos.4 to 6. Hence, construction made by defendant Nos.4 to 6 on the suit schedule site is illegal, unjustified and void ab-initio. Therefore, submitted that this action of defendant Nos.4 to 6 is completely illegal and thus, the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction, but it is not appreciated by the trial Court, and thus,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 passed erroneous order in not granting the order of temporary injunction.
14. Further submitted that when the litigation is pending before the trial Court, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that too when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted an order of status quo, the transactions are hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and such transactions are void ab-initio. When this being illegality committed by defendant Nos.4 to 6, they cannot continue construction on it. In this regard, the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, but it is not considered by the trial Court. Therefore, prays for an order of temporary injunction.
15. In support of the argument, learned Senior counsel places reliance on the following judgments:
Sl. Particulars Reported In No 1. MAHARWAL KHEWAJI TRUST (2004) 8 SCC 488 (REGD.) V. BALDEV DASS, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 2. KRISHNA KUMAR KHEMKA V. (1990) 3 SCC 669 GRINDLAYS BANK P.I.C., 3. V. SWARAJYALAXMI V. (2003) 9 SCC 525 AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS, 4. SATYABRATA BISWAS V. (1994) 2 SCC 266 KALYAN KUMAR KISKU, 5. SANJAY VERMA V. MANIK ROY (2006) 13 SCC 608 6. USHA SINHA V. DINA RAM, (2008) 7 SCC 144 7. JEHAL TANTI V. NAGESHWAR (2013) 14 SCC 689 SINGH, 8. ITO V. M.K. MOHD. KUNHI, (1969) 71 ITR 815 : 1968 SCC ONLINE SC 71 9. KIZHAKKAE VATTAKANDIYIL 2024 (4)SCR 383 MADHAVAN VS THIYYAURKUNNATH MEEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS 10. ZENIT MATAPLAST (P) LTD. V. (2009) 10 SCC 388 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 11. PRASAR BHARATI V. BOARD (2015) 6 SCC 614 OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA, 12. GANGUBAI BABIYA (1983) 4 SCC 31 CHAUDHARY V. SITARAM BHALCHANDRA SUKHTANKAR, 13. SHRIDEVI V. MURALIDHAR, (2007) 14 SCC 721 14. JEHAL TANTI V. NAGESHWAR (2013)14 SUPREME SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. COURT CASES 689 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025
15. SANJAY VERMA V. MANIK ROY (2006) 13 SUPREME AND OTHERS COURT CASES 608:2006 SCC ONLINE SC 1371
16. MAHARWAL KHEWAJI TRUST (2004) SUPREME COURT (REGD.), FARIDKOT V. CASES 488 BALDEV DAS
17. SHYAM KUMAR INANI V. CIVIL APPEAL NO.
VINOD AGRAWAL AND ORS 2845/2015 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
18. KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL (2024) 4 S.C.R MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR.LRS. V. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS
16. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6/defendant Nos.4 to 6 submitted that the suit schedule property No.145 is not carved out of survey No.1/5 or survey No.1/7, but it is formed in survey No.1/2. The issue before the trial Court in the suit is that whether the suit property bearing No.145 is formed in survey No.1/2 or survey No.1/5 and this is to be considered by the trial Court. When this being the issue involved in the suit, it is the matter of full-fledged trial. It is further submitted that defendant Nos.4 to 6 are the bonafide purchasers. The land in survey Nos.1/2, 1/3, 1/5,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 1/7, 2, 10, 50/1, 53, 54/1, 54/A, 54/B and 55/5 in Nagarabhavi village were purchased by defendant No.1 measuring totally 28 acres and formed layout and allotted sites to its members and other purchasers. Defendant No.2 on 31.08.1999 has purchased the same through registered sale deed and thereafter, defendant No.2 sold the suit schedule site in favour of defendant No.3 through registered sale deed dated 14.11.2002 and defendant No.3 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6 through the registered sale deed dated 26.07.2017. Subsequently also, defendant No.1 has confirmed the sale deed in respect of defendant Nos.4 to 6 on 28.06.2024 and has given possession certificate and Khatha was effected in the name of defendant Nos.4 to 6. Thus, after purchasing the same, defendant Nos.4 to 6 started construction of house and completed construction of ground floor, first floor and construction of second floor is in progress. At this stage, the suit filed by the plaintiffs itself shows that the plaintiffs have filed the suit with
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 malafide intention to cause inconvenience to defendant Nos.4 to 6.
17. Further submitted that, when this being the fact involved in the suit, the plaintiffs have not made out prima facie case. Accordingly, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs and vacated the order of status quo. Thus, the trial Court has not granted an order of temporary injunction. Therefore, submitted that now defendant Nos.4 to 6 are in possession of the property as their title is traced through defendant No.1 as described above. Hence, defendant Nos.4 to 6 being bonafide purchasers have put up construction and when the construction of the building at second floor is in progress, the plaintiffs filed the instant suit.
18. Further submitted that, in the suit in O.S.No.2443/1984, RFA.No.671/2005 and even Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, defendant Nos.4 to 6 are not parties. Therefore, the order of status quo though granted by the Hon'ble Supreme
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 Court in Special leave petition challenging the judgment and decree passed in RFA.No.671/2005, but because defendant Nos.4 to 6 are not parties in the said proceedings, thus, the said order of status quo is not binding on defendant Nos.4 to 6.
19. Further submitted that when this being the factual scenario along with the documents submitted before the trial Court and evidence is to be led before the trial Court, though defendant Nos.4 to 6 have contended that they are the bonafide purchasers, but their construction is subject to result of the suit. Whether the suit scheduled site is coming within the survey No.1/2 or 1/5 is the question for full-fledged trial. But defendant Nos.4 to 6 have purchased the site formed by defendant No.1 - Sangha, hence, defendant Nos.4 to 6 are in possession over the property. Therefore, they are not encroachers and their claim is based on the registered sale deeds. Accordingly, the trial Court has not found that the plaintiffs have prima facie case. However, whatever
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 construction may be by defendant Nos.4 to 6 is subject to result of the suit and they cannot claim equity as it attracts Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, when both the parties are bound by result of the suit and in this regard, the trial Court has correctly assessed the prima facie case. Therefore, there is no need to make interference in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.
20. It is the submission made by the learned Senior counsel that the suit schedule site is formed in survey No.1/5, but it is the case of defendant Nos.4 to 6 that the suit schedule site is formed in survey No.1/2. Further the material produced by the defendants that defendant No.1 had purchased the property from Ramaiah, Siddappa and Nanjappa and Putta Siddamma and formed the layout. The suit schedule property No.145 was purchased by defendant No.2 and thereafter, by defendant No.3 and thereafter, defendant Nos.4 to 6 have purchased the said site. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not the owners of the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 land in survey No.1/2. It is submitted that originally the land in survey No.1/2 was to the extent of 7 acres 16 guntas and thereafter, phodies were done and numbers were given as survey Nos.1/2, 1/5 and 1/7. This is the confusion in identifying the land as per survey numbers. The original land in survey No.1/2 was further phoded and assigned the survey numbers once again as 1/2 and also with 1/5 and 1/7. Therefore, where exactly the suit schedule site is situated whether in survey No.1/2 or 1/5 or 1/7 is the question to be tried before the trial Court. For this, the plaintiffs also do not have specific assertions.
21. But upon considering the facts pleaded and material produced at this stage by defendant Nos.4 to 6, prima facie it is proved that they are not encroachers either of the land or site No.145. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 are asserting their rights through the registered sale deeds and further defendant No.1 - Sangha confirmed the sale dead of defendant Nos.4 to 6 on 28.06.2024 by executing the sale deed. The khatha and other necessary records
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 were mutated in the name of defendant Nos.4 to 6. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 have started construction and completed the construction of ground floor, first floor and construction of second floor is in progress. At this stage, the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants for declaration of title. Though, it is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that there was an order of status quo in the above said SLPs by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but these defendant Nos.4 to 6 were not parties in the said SLPs.
22. The learned Senior counsel argued that during the pendency of suit, appeal filed before this Court and appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, transactions were made and that is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, it is submitted that when there is an order of status quo and proceedings are pending, whatever sale transactions are effected are null, void and void ab-initio. Therefore, defendant Nos.4 to 6 are to be prohibited from further construction. The decisions relied
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 upon by the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants are on the principle of law governing on the law of injunction and under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
23. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act reads as follows:
"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.--During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force."
24. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is based on doctrine of lis pendens. It says whatever transactions during pendency of the suit proceedings are about validations and such transactions are subject to result of the suit/appeal. It envisages the validations of the transactions subject to result of suit, but there is no prohibition of transactions during the suit proceedings. Therefore, whenever make sale transactions or in any other manner during pendency of proceedings that is subject to result of suit proceedings. The effect of doctrine of lis pendens as embodied in Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not to annul all voluntary transfers effected by the parties to a suit, but only to render it subservient to
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 the rights of the parties thereto under the decree or order which may be made in that suit. Its effect is only to make the decree passed in the suit binding on the transferee if he happens to be third party person even if he is not a party to it. The transfer will remain valid subject, however to the result of the suit. Therefore, whatever transactions made be that is subject to result of the suit and the transferees' pendente lite shall not claim equity.
25. In the present case, defendant Nos.4 to 6 are claiming their title through registered sale deeds originated from the layout formed by defendant No.1 and not encroachers and trespassers. The plaintiffs may be claiming that the suit schedule site is formed in survey No.1/5 that is yet to be decided for the discussions made above. Admittedly, defendant Nos.4 to 6 being in possession of the property are constructing the building on it and that is subject to result of the suit. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is based on validation of transactions, but there is no prohibitory clause in Section
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025
52. There may be transactions pendente lite and validity or invalidity is subject to result of the suit, but there is no prohibitory clause in Section 52. Therefore, whatever construction is being made by defendant Nos.4 to 6 is subject to result of the suit and they cannot claim equity.
26. The argument made by the learned Senior counsel is mainly based on the principle of law of injunction and its violation, transactions pendente lite based on Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Though, the transactions may be void ab-initio, null and void that is depending upon the result in the suit.
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.G.Ashok Kumar Vs. Govindammal & Another reported in (2010) 14 SCC 370, held that Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision to the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 transfer of property. It is held at paragraph Nos.12 and 13 as under:
"12. In Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami this Court held (at SCC p. 218, para 47) that the purpose of Section 52 of the Act is not to defeat any just and equitable claim, but only to subject them to the authority of the court which is dealing with the property to which claims are put forward. This Court in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh held that Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision in the pending litigation.
13. The principle underlying Section 52 is clear. If during the pendency of any suit in a court of competent jurisdiction which is not collusive, in which any right of an immovable property is directly and specifically in question, such property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree that may be made in such suit. If ultimately the title of the pendente lite transferor is upheld in regard to the transferred property, the transferee's title will not be affected."
28. The transferee's title will not be affected, just because the transaction is pendente lite. If the title of the pendente lite transferor is recognized or accepted only in regard to a part of the transferred property, then the
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 transferee's title will be saved only in regard to that extent.
29. It is not the case of the plaintiff that 4th and 6th defendants' transfer/transaction is fraudulent transaction/transfer as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Nawab John & Others Vs. V.N.Subramaniyam reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738 held that Section 52 is not to render transfers affected during the pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void; but only to render such transfers subservient to the rights of the parties to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suit. The transfer remains valid subject to the result of the suit. The pendente lite purchaser would be entitled to or suffer the same legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined by the Court. Therefore, the pendente lite transfer is just like hanging a sword on the pendente lite transferee. Therefore, such transferee is bound by result of the suit.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025
30. Therefore, submissions made by learned Senior counsel cannot be accepted at this stage for grant of an order of temporary injunction for the reason that defendant Nos.4 to 6 are not parties to O.S.No.2443/1984, RFA.No.671/2005 and SLP (CIVIL) Diary No.28193/2024 and SLP to Appeal (c) No.19216/2024. Furthermore, defendant Nos.4 to 6 are claiming their title based on the registered sale deed originated from defendant No.1-Sangha. Defendant No.1- Sangha is the purchaser of the land from the cousins of the plaintiffs. Thus, defendant Nos.4 to 6 at this stage cannot be considered as they are trespassers and encroachers of the plaintiffs' land.
31. Furthermore, defendants have produced the photographs, sanction plan, khatha extract and all are standing in the name of defendant Nos.4 to 6. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 have obtained the sanction plan from competent authority for construction of building over the suit property. At that time, the plaintiffs have obstructed.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 Therefore, defendant Nos.4 to 6 have filed the suit in O.S.No.3334/2024 for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs herein. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit. All these goes to show that the plaintiffs have not made out a case for grant of an order of temporary injunction. Therefore, there is no balance of convenience at this stage in favour of plaintiffs.
32. Furthermore, defendant Nos.4 to 6 being purchasers of the property have been mutated their names in the property extract and other records and obtained sanction plan from the concerned authorities and started putting up construction and at this stage, if an order of temporary injunction is passed, then it would cause more injury and loss to defendant Nos.4 to 6 rather than the plaintiffs. When the construction over the suit schedule site is subject to result of the suit and pendente lite transactions and defendant Nos.4 to 6 cannot claim equity, then Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17353 MFA No. 1118 of 2025 protects the right of the plaintiffs in case the plaintiffs succeeds in O.S.No.5748/2024 (the instant suit).
33. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in dismissing the application filed for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs and discontinued the order of status quo. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i), (ii) and (iii) in negative and point No.(iv) in affirmative. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72