Karnataka High Court
Sri G M Ravindra vs Sri.G. Krishnamurthy on 25 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:28602
MFA No. 2452 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2452 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G.M. RAVINDRA
S/O LATE G. MARISWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT SRI SAI COMPLEX
M.C.ROAD, KALLAHALLI
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401
SRI. RAJU R. SUBBAYYA
SINCE DEAD
REP BY HER LR, APPELLANT No.2
SMT. JAYAMMA R. SUBBAYYA
SINCE DEAD
REP BY HER LR, APPELLANT No.2
2. SMT. G.R. USHARANI
Digitally signed
by ANJALI M W/O G.M. RAVINDRA
Location: High AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
Court of
Karnataka RA/T SRI SAI COMPLEX
M.C ROAD, KALLAHALLI
MANDYA-570401
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.R. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O SRI. GANGAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:28602
MFA No. 2452 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.1, 1ST FLOOR
BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA
12TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
DR. NANJUNDAIAH ROAD
KIDS SCHOOL, 'A' BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010
2. THE MICO ASSOCIATES HOUSING
CO-OPERAITVE SOCIETY LTD
NO.290/2, 2ND FLOOR, LAXMI ARCADE
H.SIDDAIAH ROAD, WILSON GARDEN
OPPOSITE SABARWAL HOTEL
BENGALURU-560 027
REP. BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES CUM RECOVERY OFFICER
2ND CIRCLE NO.146, SHAHAKARI SOUDHA
3RD MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS ROAD
MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
4. SMT JAYAMMA K
MAJOR
RA/T NUMBER 1394, 2ND CROSS
C.NARAYANA LAYOUT
BAGALGUNTE
BENGALURU-560 073
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. VYASA KIRAN UPADHYA B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. H.M. HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DTD.06.06.2024 NOTICE TO
R1 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/O.43
RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.20.12.2023
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:28602
MFA No. 2452 of 2024
HC-KAR
PASSED ON IA NO.7 IN O.S.NO.3638/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT,
BENGALURU, (CCH-12), REJECTING IA NO.7 FILED U/O.39
RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, 1908 challenging the correctness and validity of the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the XVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-
12) in OS NO.3638/2018 whereby, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the 4th respondent from alienating or encumbering the suit property pending adjudication of the main suit. The appellants, aggrieved by the said rejection of their IA., have approached this Court seeking appellate interference to the said order.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:28602 MFA No. 2452 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. The material facts giving rise to the present proceedings are; that the appellants who are the plaintiffs in the suit have instituted OS No.3638/2018 seeking multiple relief's, including a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 6.7.2007 allegedly executed by the first respondent in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.34/7 measuring 0.11 guntas situated at Srigandada Kavalu Village, Benglauru; a declaration that the auction sale held by the 2nd respondent - Society and confirming in favor of the 4th respondent is null and void; permanent injunction restraining interference with their possession and a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the third respondent i.e Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the proceedings initiated under the provisions the Karnataka Co-operative Act, 1959. The plaintiffs also have sought ancillary consequential reliefs from the same cause of action.
3. According to the appellants, the first respondent agreed to sell the aforementioned land under the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:28602 MFA No. 2452 of 2024 HC-KAR unregistered agreement of sale executed in the month of July 2007. It is asserted that, the appellants had paid substantial consideration under the said agreement and were in constructive possession of the property. The sale transaction according to the appellants could not be completed owing to administrative delays including non- issuance of the 11E sketch which was essential for registration of the sale deed.
4. It is their case that, they were waiting formal completion of the sale transaction, the second respondent which is registered Housing Co-operative Society proceeded to initiate recovery proceedings against the first respondent under Section 101 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 contending that, the first respondent had defaulted in repayment of dues owed to the society. Pursuant to such proceedings, an order of attachment was issued on 10.11.2017 by the 3rd respondent -Assistant Registrar and the appellants filed objections in the said proceeding asserting their pre-existing agreement and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:28602 MFA No. 2452 of 2024 HC-KAR other rights flowing there from. However, their objections came to be rejected by the Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies through a detailed order dated 7.3.2018. Despite the said rejection of their claim by the competent authority, the appellants did not challenge the said order under the appellate mechanism available under the Act.
5. Subsequently, the second respondent proceeded with the auction of the subject property and in the public auction held on 15.10.2020, the fourth respondent emerged as the highest bidder. The sale in his favor was confirmed on 2.12.2020, and a formal sale certificate was issued thereafter, thereby, vesting of title and possession rights with the 4th respondent.
6. It is in this context that the appellants filed I.A. 7 in the pending suit seeking temporary injunction to restrain the 4th respondent from creating any 3rd party rights, alienating or encumbering the property in question. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:28602 MFA No. 2452 of 2024 HC-KAR The trial Court, on thorough consideration of the facts and rival submissions, proceeded to reject the application holding inter alia that, the appellants had failed to establish the essential ingredients of grant of temporary injunction, prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
7. This is how now the appellants have assailed the said order on multiple grounds and have prayed that, the impugned order be set aside and injunction as sought be granted in the interest of justice.
8. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants Sri. M.R. Rajgopal taking this Court to the various observations of the trial Court and grounds made out in the appeal with all force submits that, the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality in dismissing the application. According to him, still the so called agreement of sale is in force and because of not executing the sale deed by the vendor, he has filed the comprehensive suit -8- NC: 2025:KHC:28602 MFA No. 2452 of 2024 HC-KAR as stated supra and hence, rights of the plaintiffs ought to have been protected by granting temporary injunction.
9. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondents R.B. Sadashivappa with Sri. Vyasa Kiran Upadya B.R., appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit, the trial Court having considered the pleadings of both the parties, status of the property sold in the public auction having purchased by defendant no.4 has rightly dismissed the application. He too relied upon the observations made by the trial Court.
10. I have carefully examined the pleadings, the material on record and the reasoning assigned by the trial Court, so also anxiously considered the submission of both the side. At the very outset, it must be noticed that, the appellant's entire claim for interim relief is predicated upon an unregistered agreement of sale which although, potentially enforceable through a suit for specific performance does not by itself, create any legal right, title -9- NC: 2025:KHC:28602 MFA No. 2452 of 2024 HC-KAR or interest in the immovable property so as to override the lawful and statutory processes initiated under the Co-Operative Societies Act. The appellant's failure to have registered agreement coupled with any order protecting possession or restraining authority from proceeding with attachment or auction, has significantly weakened their position in law. The trial Court has rightly observed that the appellant's right if any must await execution in the main suit and no interim restraint can be granted against a confirmed auction purchaser whose rights have matured upon issuance of a sale certificate.
11. Furthermore, the issue of prima facie case must be examined in light of the fact that, the Assistant Registrar of co-operative Societies exercising the quasi- judicial authority under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act had considered the appellant's objections and rejected their claim in the year 2018 itself. That order has not been questioned by the appellants in the appropriate forum. Having allowed that order to attain finality, the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28602 MFA No. 2452 of 2024 HC-KAR appellants now cannot in a-round-about manner, seeking to reopen the matter by filing civil suit and worse still, attempt to injunct the confirmed purchaser without any substantial basis. The trial Court's finding that appellants lack a prima facie finding is well supported by the facts and the said scheme governing such auctions.
12. As regard the balance of convenience, this Court is of the considered view that, 4th respondent being the auction purchaser having purchased the property in public auction conducted in accordance with law and secured sale certificate stands on a higher footing as regards property claims over the suit schedule property. The balance of convenience clearly tilts in favor of protecting rights of the confirmed auction purchased as opposed to agreement holder whose title is yet to crystallized through specific performance. Any injunction restraining the 4th respondent from dealing with the property would cause disproportionate hardship and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28602 MFA No. 2452 of 2024 HC-KAR inconvenience especially when appellants' claim remains at a nascent stage, subject to trial.
13. On the aspect of irreparable injury, it must be borne in mind that, where the alleged injury is compensable in terms of money where the appellant themselves have not demonstrated any right over the property beyond agreement cannot be said that, they would suffer irreparable harm. Even in the event, the appellants ultimately succeed in securing a decree for specific performance, question of restitution or compensation can be addressed at the appropriate stage. Injecting a third party who has acquired rights through statutory auction would be unjustified and legally untenable unless compelling circumstances are established, which is not a case here.
14. In addition to the above, this Court cannot lose sight of limitations placed upon the civil Courts under the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, Section 118 of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28602 MFA No. 2452 of 2024 HC-KAR Act restricts the jurisdiction of civil Courts in matters related to the Act, disputes concerning the society's business, or matters decided by the Registrar or Tribunal. This means that, if a dispute falls under the purview of the Act, it should be addressed by the designated authorities (Registrar or Tribunal) rather than a civil Court.
15. The present dispute essentially arises out of proceedings under Section 101 of said Act, where the appellants' objections are duly considered and rejected. The Civil Courts therefore, must be cautious before assuming jurisdiction over such matters. The trial Court has rightly observed that the appellants' suit and interim relief sought therein are subject to the constraints imposed by the statutory bar on jurisdiction.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, irregularity, or illegality in the impugned order. The findings of the trial Court are supported by reasoned analysis and are in consonance with the settled
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28602 MFA No. 2452 of 2024 HC-KAR legal principles. The appellants have not made out any exceptional circumstances warranting appellate interference. The rights of the 4th respondent acquired through a statutory auction and confirmed sale cannot be lightly disturbed especially in the absence of a convenience or lawful possession by the appellants. The trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in refusing the injunction and no interference is called for this Court.
17. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with no orders to costs.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34