JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-defendant Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No.1 and 2 to 6.

2. The appellants, who are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed this appeal challenging the order dtd. 24/2/2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.4731/2022 on the file of the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH- 67), allowing I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and restraining them from encumbering or creating third party interest or charge in respect of 50% of developed sites of the schedule property.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration is that Sy.No.206 of Kengeri was owned by late Rangappa. The said entire land was acquired under notification by Karnataka Housing Board during 1998 and concluded on 22/4/2022. The father and grand-father of plaintiffs' family have challenged the acquisition notification before the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.Nos.14063/1993, 17407/2000 and W.A.No.5533/1998 and the matter was also taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, at that time, defendant Nos.1 and 2 the pawn brokers an