Defendants, who file a counter claim against the plaintiff, can maintain an application for temporary injunction against the plaintiff. Additionally, the court may injunct the plaintiff to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the suit if the plaintiff has begun construction activities under the cover of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging order dated 26.08.2022 passed by XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-6) on I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, in O.S.No.3694/2021 this appeal is filed.

2. Appellant herein was plaintiff, while respondents herein were defendants no. 1 to 4 respectively in suit. They shall hereinafter be referred to as such.

3. O.S.No.3694/2021 was filed by plaintiff seeking for declaration that plaintiff was absolute owner of schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’ for short). He had also sought for declaration that gift deeds dated 21.06.2010; sale deeds dated 14.05.2007 and 05.03.1981; confirmation deed dated 29.11.2017 as null and void and cancel same as not binding on plaintiff; so also judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8770/2012 passed by X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as not binding on plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering/trespassing into suit properties etc.

4. In said suit, plaintiff had filed I.A.no.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction restraining defendants no.1 and 2 from interfering/ trespassing into suit properties. Property bearing site no.19, municipal no.38/1/19, BBMP khata no.43 was schedule ‘A’ property, while site no.20, municipal no.38/1/20, BBMP khata no.47 was schedule ‘B’ property, both were formed in Sy.no.38/1, each measuring East to West 40ft. and North to South 60ft., totally 2400 sq.ft., situated at Mallathahalli, BBMP ward no.129, Yeshvantpura Hobli, Bengaluru North.

5. On consideration, trial Court initially granted ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction. Upon entering appearance, defendants no.1 and 2 filed written statement with counter claim. They also filed I.A.no.2 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking order of temporary injunction restraining plaintiff from interfering with peaceful possession of defendants over suit properties.

6. On consideration of both applications, trial Court under impugned order rejected I.A.no.1 filed by plaintiff and allowed I.A.no.2 filed by defendants, thereby restraining plaintiff from interfering with peaceful possession of defendants no.1 and 2 in respect of suit properties.

7. Challenging same, this appeal is filed by plaintiff.

8. Shri. Dinesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff submitted that plaintiff purchased suit properties under two registered sale deeds dated 20.04.2021. However, defendant no.3 had executed two registered agreements of sale in favour of plaintiff on 07.11.2014 and put him in possession. Thereafter, name of plaintiff was entered in BBMP records. As such, plaintiff was in possession of above properties on date of suit.

9. It was further submitted that suit properties were earlier part of Sy.No.38 of Mallathahalli village, measuring 02 acres 12 guntas belonging to one Sri Veerabadraiah, who sold it to Sri Rudrahanumaiah under sale deed dated 21.03.1966. Said Rudrahanumaiah, further sold it to Sri Devegowda under sale deed dated 18.12.1966, who in turn sold 02 acres 11 guntas in favour of Sri Chikkanna under sale deed dated 11.09.1969. After his death, his wife and children sold 02 acres 11 guntas to Sri Veerabadrappa -defendant no.4 under sale deed dated 23.06.1971. Further as plaintiff owned adjacent properties viz., site nos.21 and 22, he purchased suit properties to have one big area for his venture. It was submitted that said plots were fenced and electricity connection was obtained from BESCOM and plaintiff was paying consumption charges which indicated that plaintiff was in possession. It was submitted that whether plaintiff's possession was lawful or otherwise, was required to be adjudicated after trial. Since, defendants no.1 and 2 in their application and objections to plaintiff's application were alleging that plaintiff was putti