Point of law: If an injunction is obtained falsely stating that High Court has refused to grant an injunction and when the same is also not considered on main and it will be considered along with main and the very suppression of facts in obtaining the order also not sustainable in the eye of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is listed for admission. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, heard the matter on main itself though the matter is listed for considering the application for vacating the interim order granted by this Court.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondents/plaintiffs herein in the suit in O.S.No.7245/2022 is that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property bearing Sy.No.32 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas of Puttenahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore morefully described in the schedule and the relief sought is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs’ right, title, interest and ownership of the property and also restraining the defendants from interfering with the commencement and completion of the project on the schedule property described in the schedule. The schedule property is bearing No.32/1, 32/3, 32/4 measuring 5 acres 35 guntas situated at Puttenahalli village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. In the plaint it is contended that the plaintiffs have executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Sri B M Karunesh and also executed registered Joint Development Agreement on 01.07.2005 for the purposes of development of the property. It is also contended that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property of land bearing Sy.No.32 measuring 7 acres 9 guntas including 18 guntas of karab situated at Puttenahalli village, Uttarahali hobli, Bangalore South taluk and the same was purchased by late Kadirappa under a sale deed dated 16.01.1918. The said late Kadirappa was cultivating the said land and was in joint possession along with joint family property together with his children. Kadirappa and his seven sons have effected family registered partition on 15.06.1954. Under the aforesaid partition, the land in Sy.No.32 of Puttenahalli village measuring 7 acres 9 guntas was divided into three equal shares to M. Bramhananda, Dr. M. Gurudas and Narayanadas and M.Bramhananda became the absolute owner of 2 acres 10.33 guntas, M.Narayanadas became the absolute owner of 2 acres 10.33 guntas and Dr. M.Gurudas became absolute owner of 2 acres 10.33 guntas in Sy.No.32 situated at Puttenahalli village.

3. It is further contended that M.Bramhananda along with his sons have entered into the partition on 10.11.1975 and subsequently, the same was partitioned on 08.03.1992 which had been recorded on 10.06.2004. Under the said partition, plaintiff Nos.9 and 13 were allotted 40379.50 square feet each and both plaintiff Nos.9 and 13 have left 4560 square feet for widening of the road on the western side of the property. Subsequent to the partition, plaintiff Nos.9 and 13 have transferred the katha and other revenue records in their names and they are paying taxes regularly. M.Narayanadas, his wife and children have effected Memorandum of partition on 28.03.1974 and M.Gurudas, his wife and children have allotted the share under the Memorandum of partition dated 15.06.1954 and they are the absolute owners and they entered into a Joint Development Agreement. All the plaintiffs approached plaintiff No.21 -M/s. Adarsh Developers and entered into a Joint Development Agreement with plaintiff No.21 on 01.07.2005 and also executed Power of Attorney. Subsequently, the plaintiffs got converted the suit schedule property from agricultural to non-agricultural property. In paragraph 8, they have pleaded that the defendants who are utter stranger to suit schedule property had filed original suit in O.S.No.8033/2014 and the same came to be dismissed by the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that based on fabricated, concocted and created documents, the suit for permanent injunction was filed. Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the High Court and the said appeal was pending and interim order has not been granted in the said appeal.

4. It is also the contention of pe