( 1 ) M. F. A. No. 3918 of 1999 is by defendant 3 and M. F. A. No. 5160 of 1999 is by defendants 1 and 2 challenging the order passed by the Trial court on I. A. No. I filed by the plaintiff (respondent 1 herein) under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code in O. S. No. 4252 of 1999 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore.

( 2 ) THE parties in these appeals are referred to as arrayed in the Trial court.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit against defendants 1 to 3 and others for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit the plaintiff has made the application for an order of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to restrain defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The said application was resisted by defendants 1 to 3. The learned City Civil Judge after hearing both the parties granted injunction as prayed for.

( 4 ) THE facts in this case are that the plaintiff had purchased a site measuring 40' x 60' bearing No. 830 in Sy. Nos. 212 and 213 of halagevaderahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The further case of the plaintiff is that one Vishwabharathi House Building co-operative Society, No, 35, Rathnavilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'society'), allotted the said site in his favour and had executed a registered sale deed dated 17-2-1995 in his favour. Similarly, the Society had also allotted sites and sold several sites in favour of defendants 4 to 52 and 54 to 143. The plaintiff claiming to be in possession under the above said sale deed, in the first instance, filed a suit for permanent injunction as against defendants 1 to 3 in his individual capacity. Thereafter, the plaintiff made an application to treat the said suit as a suit filed in the representative capacity by making an application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. This application has been allowed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that as against the said order the appellants in these appeals have preferred revision petitions C. R. P. Nos. 2768 and 2887 of 1999 before this Court. This Court admitted the above said petitions and granted an interim order of stay staying the order passed on the said application. The plaintiff also has filed another application for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the land and to submit the report by filing LA. No. III before the Trial Court. The said application was also allowed by the trial Court. Against that order the appellants in these appeals have filed Revision Petition Nos. 2769 and 2888 of 1999 before this Court. This Court admitted the said revision petitions and granted stay of further proceedings in this suit (O. S. No. 4252 of 1999 ).

( 5 ) THESE two appeals as stated earlier are against the order of temporary injunction granted on the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 6 ) THE defendants in the written statement and in the objections to the interlocutory application have prayed for dismissal of the suit and the application. In order to appreciate whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for an order of temporary injunction, it is useful to refer to certain earlier litigations in order to know whether the Society which allotted the site in favour of the plaintiff has in fact had any title to the property in order to transfer the same in favour of the plaintiff and others.

( 7 ) THE lands in Sy. Nos. 212 and 213 were notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the benefit of the society by issuing notification under. Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act. In the said notification the name of Nanjamma and H. Lankappa were shown as kathadars and anubavadars of the land in question. Originally, the land in Sy. Nos. 212 and 2