Aravind Kumar, J.

1. This is a defendant's appeal challenging the order passed by 42nd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dated 02.09.2014 in O.S. No. 6414/2014, whereunder I.A. No. 2 filed by the plaintiff for the relief of temporary injunction to restrain defendant or anybody on his behalf from putting up further construction in the scheduled terrace, has been allowed. I have heard the arguments of Smt. Nalina Mayegowda, learned Counsel appearing for appellant and Sri D.N. Narnjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the order under challenge. Parties are referred to as per rank in the trial Court.

2. Plaintiff has flied a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain, the defendant from putting up any illegal construction in the terrace area of the apartment Nos. 308 and 309 and in the terrace garden area of apartment No. 306, contrary to deed of declaration and administrative rules and regulations of plaintiff-Association and for a mandatory injunction to demolish and remove all illegal construction in the scheduled terrace garden area of apartment Nos. 308 and 309 and in the terrace garden area of apartment No. 306. In aid of common relief, an application was filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction, which was resisted to by defendant contending inter alia that terrace a is owned by defendant and as such, defendant is entitled to put up structure in the said area and if an order of temporary injunction is granted, it would cause irreparable loss and injury to the defendant. Hence, on the ground of prima facie case and balance of convenience being in his favour, defendant sought for dismissal of the application.

3. Trial Court on appreciation of rival contentions found that prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff and held if an order of temporary injunction refused, it is the plaintiff, who would be put to irreparable loss and injury and as such, has granted an order all temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff, which is under challenge in the present appeal by the defendant.

4. Smt. Nalina Mayegowda, learned Counsel appearing for defendant would vehemently contend that under the sale deeds dated 07.06.2013 defendant and his wife purchased the flats 308 and 309 of Mangalya Apartments which includes the suit schedule property as described in the plaint schedule and defendant has exclusive right to use and enjoy 2828 sq. ft. private terrace area apart from apartments and other areas as described in the schedule to the said sale deeds and as such, plaintiff-association cannot restrain defendant from putting up construction, which according to Smt. Nalina Mayegowda is not a permanent structure but only a structure for the purposes of putting-up terrace garden. The documents produced before the trial Court has also been made available by learned Counsel for appellant.

5. Per contra, Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for respondent - plaintiff would support the order passed by the trial Court and contends that members of the plaintiff--Association have framed administrative Rules and Regulations as permitted under Section 7 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and as per the Deed of Declaration dated 14.06.2002 the memo hers of the plaintiff--Association including the defendant have to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions stipulated under the Deed of Declaration and as per clause 8.1 of the Deed of Declaration and clause 5.3 of the Administrative Rules and Regulations defendant cannot construct or put up structure either temporarily or permanent and the activity now carried on by the plaintiff is an illegal construction in the schedule terrace area and contrary to the clauses above referred to. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. It is no doubt true that under the sale deeds dated 07.06.2013 defendant has purchased flats in question together with right to use and enjoy 2828 sq. f