An interim injunction cannot be granted if the main suit is not maintainable, and the absence of necessary parties in the suit undermines the plaintiff's claim.

JUDGMENT

1. The defendant No.1 in O.S.No.837/2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this appeal challenging the correctness of the order dtd. 14/12/2022 by which, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC was allowed and the defendant No.1 was restrained from alienating, encumbering or transferring the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit.

2. The suit in O.S.No.837/2021 was filed for the following reliefs:-

(a) declare that the alleged cancellation of the power of attorney by the Defendant dtd. 6/3/2020 cancelling the registered power of attorney executed in favour of the Plaintiff by the Defendant dtd. 18/12/2007 is null and void, non-est in the eye of law and not binding on the Plaintiff.

(b) Directing the Defendant No.1 to come and execute the sale deeds in respect of the schedule properties in favour of the proposed purchasers through the Plaintiff as that of a Power of Attorney holder for whom the Defendant No.1 has received the consideration of Rs.68, 00, 000.00;

In the alternative directing the Defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff in consonance with Defendant No.2 and 3.

(c) Direct the Defendant No.1 and 2 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff of the proposed allotment of ten sites (morefully described in the schedule hereunder and called as the schedule property) as 40% of the developed area in respect of the acquisition in respect of the Sy.No.25 part measuring 3 acres 3 guntas of Jigala village.

3. The suit was filed in respect of 8 sites bearing Nos.1805/B5/MIG, 39/B4/HIF-I, 342/B4/HIG-II, 343/B4/HIG- II, 65/B4/HIG-II, 1804/B5/MIG, 341/B4/HIG-II and 1681/B5/HIG-I situate at Suryanagara, 3rd Phase, Jigala village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.1 was the owner of the suit schedule properties and several other properties and was a resident of Tamil Nadu. The plaintiff claimed that as the defendant No.1 could not manage his properties, he executed a power of attorney dtd. 2/3/1998 in favour of father of the plaintiff to manage and to deal with the properties in the manner he felt fit. Consequent to the power of attorney, the father of the plaintiff was managing and looking after the properties and he converted several survey numbers for non- agricultural purposes. After the execution of the general power of attorney, the father of the plaintiff had converted the lands into residential sites and sold it to different persons based on the power of attorney. The plaintiff claimed that his father died on 12/8/2007. Then defendant No.1 executed a power of attorney dtd. 18/12/2007 in favour of plaintiff, which was duly registered in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.24/3, 27, 25/P, in all measuring 7 acres 13 guntas at Jigala village and Sy.No.21/4, 191/6, 191/4, 191/3 and 184/3C, 184/3DP, 184/3D, 184/3D, 184/3D and 158, in all measuring 14 acres 13 guntas of Yadavanahalli village. He contended that the power of attorney dtd. 18/12/2007 was irrevocable as it was baked with consideration paid. The plaintiff claimed that the Karnataka Housing Board proposed to acquire the land in Sy.No.25 for the purposes of developing a township named, "Surya City". The plaintiff claimed that several correspondences ensued for the deletion of the properties from the acquisition and in view of the policy decision taken by the Board, the defendant No.1 was entitled to 40% of the developed land. The plaintiff claimed that the Karnataka Housing Board had proposed to allot 10 sites to the defendant No.1 and in respect of 10 sites, the plaintiff had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the defendant No.1 whereunder, he paid a sum of Rs.1, 50, 000.00. Subsequent thereto, plaintiffs entered into agreements of sale in favour of eight pur