- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SRI B H NARAYAN v. SRI T L BASAVARAJU
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, Sri B.H. Narayan, was the owner of the schedule property and executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant, Sri T.L. Basavaraju, on 27.05.1992. The plaintiff contended that this was not an outright sale but a loan transaction, supported by an agreement of reconveyance executed on the same day. Additionally, another agreement of reconveyance was executed on 27.12.2007. When the defendant refused to execute the sale deed reconveying the property back to the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit.
The trial Court, after considering the material on record, granted the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant challenged this order by filing a Miscellaneous Appeal (M.A.No.11/2012), but the Appellate Court affirmed the trial Court’s finding that a prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff. The defendant then filed the present Writ Petition challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of an agreement of reconveyance sufficient to justify the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit.
- Whether the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate Courts holding that the plaintiff was entitled to protection of the property by temporary injunction should be interfered with by this Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner argued that if there was truly a deed of reconveyance, it should have been reflected in the sale deed itself.
- He contended that no consideration was paid, thereby casting doubt on the genuineness of the reconveyance agreement.
- The petitioner disputed the existence of the deed of reconveyance and submitted that the Courts below were not justified in holding that a prima facie case for temporary injunction was made out.
Respondent’s Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the facts were undisputed and that two fact-finding authorities—the trial Court and the Appellate Court—had concurrently considered the material on record and held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of execution of the deed of reconveyance. Since the plaintiff was admittedly the owner of the property prior to the sale deed, the Court emphasized the necessity of preserving the property during the pendency of the suit. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the well-considered orders granting temporary injunctions by the Courts below.
Holding and Implications
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is that the temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit remains in force. No new precedent was established by this ruling.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RDDAY OF APRIL 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.26714/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
Sri B.H.Narayan S/o Late Hanumanthappa Aged about 68 years R/o Banavara Kote Banavara Town
Arsikere Taluk-573103 ...PETITIONER (By Sri H.T.Nataraja, Adv.)
AND :
Sri T.L.Basavaraju S/o Sri Linge Gowda Aged about 67 years R/o Banavara Town Arsikere Taluk-573103 …RESPONDENT (By Sri B.G.Surya Kumar, Adv.)
. . . .
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, JMFC at Arsikere in Misc.Appeal.No.11/2012 Annx-H and
1
also to set aside the order passed in O.S.No.311/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Arsikere on I.A.No.nil dated 15.03.2011 i.e., Annx-F.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in `B' group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
This is a defendant's Writ Petition challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of an agreement of reconveyance and, therefore, during the pendency of the suit, the defendant was restrained from alienating the property.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff was the owner of the schedule property. He executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant on 27.5.1992. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was not an out and out sale, but only a loan transaction. Therefore, on the very day, the defendant executed an agreement of reconveyance.
2
Subsequently, one more agreement of reconveyance was executed on 27.12.2007. When the defendant refused to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for specific performance. As the defendant was attempting to alienate the property, the plaintiff sought for an order of temporary injunction restraining him from alienating the property during the pendency of the proceedings.
3. The application was contested. However, the trial Court, on appreciation of the material on record, found that, a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction is made out and, passed the order in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal in M.A.No.11/2012. The lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire material on record came to the conclusion that the prima facie case made out by the plaintiff was rightly accepted by the trial Court and therefore, affirmed the said finding. It is against
3
the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contended that, if really there was a deed of reconveyance, the same should have found place in the sale deed; no consideration is paid. The defendant disputes the said deed of reconveyance. In the circumstances, the Courts below were not justified in holding that a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction is made out and, therefore, he submits that a case for interference is made out.
5. When two fact finding authorities, after considering the material on record, have concurrently held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of execution of the deed of reconveyance and when the plaintiff was admittedly the owner of the property before due execution of the sale deed, the property is to be preserved during the pendency of the suit. For preservation of the property, if an order of temporary injunction is granted by both the Courts, I do not
4
see any grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Courts below. There is no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/-
JUDGE
ckl/-
5
Alert