The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for plaintiffs to prove a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor when seeking a temporary injunction. Insufficient material evidence can lead to the rejection of such applications.

Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J.

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant-s and the respondents, heard arguments on merits for final disposal.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. MFA is filed by them challenging the rejection of I.As.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

3. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Court below.

4. The facts briefly stated are that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property bearing sy.No.44 (New Sy.No.44/2, 44/7 measuring 1 acre situated at Konappana Agrahara in Bengaluru South Taluk. The father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and grand father of other plaintiffs namely Muniswamappa had purchased a suit property under the registered sale deed 29.06.1959. After the demise of Muniswamappa, his only son Narayanappa i.e., the husband of the plaintiff No.1 acquired the said property through a Will dated 05.10.1988. After the demise of said Narayanappa the plaintiffs being wife and children have become the owners of the property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Even though the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 had purchased 1 acre land in Sy.No.44 of Konappana Agrahara, the survey number of said 1 acre of land was wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.37/1, but the boundaries of the said 1 acre of land are correctly mentioned in the sale deed. By taking undue advantage of the error crept in mentioning the survey number in registered sale deed dated 29.06.1959, the defendant-respondents 1 to 5 got their names entered in the mutation register and consequent entries are also carried out in the record of rights in respect of suit schedule property. Since there was a interference by the defendants and also the dispute with regard to entries in the revenue records, the appellants filed the suit for declaration and injunction and subsequently, amendment was done for seeking relief for possession of the schedule property.

5. The plaintiffs/appellants had filed I.A.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction against the defendants/ respondents. Initially the trial Court had granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants/ respondents 1 to 6 from alienating and encumbering the suit schedule property. On appearance, the defendants filed I.A. Nos.1 to 4 for vacating the order of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. On hearing both parties, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs/appellants were rejected and I.A.no.3 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC was allowed. The exparte order of temporary injunction granted on 06.08.2016 was vacated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs/appellants have preferred this appeal.

6. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiffs have purchased property bearing No.37/1, not the suit schedule property. The grand father of defendant Nos.1 and 5 namely Nanjappa had acquired different portions of the property in Sy.No.44 of Konappana Agrahara under registered sale deed dated 17.02.1964 and subsequently in a family partition 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.44 was allotted to the share of Seenappa i.e., father of the defendant Nos.1 and 5. During the phodi proceedings, it was noticed that actual extent of land allotted to share of Seenappa in the family partition deed dated 8.8.1966 is 25 guntas and not 17 guntas, subsequently, out of 25 guntas, 24 guntas land in Sy.No.44 (New Sy.no.44/7 was allotted to the share of defendant No.1 and the remaining extent of 1 gunta (New Sy.No.44/2) was allotted to share of defendant No.5. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 got converted the 16 guntas of land out of 24 guntas in Sy.No.44/7 into non agriculture and entered into development agreement with defendant No.6. The defendants have already put up construction of apartments in the said land by investing huge amount and also incurring loan. The property said to have been purchased by the p