Temporary injunctions require plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm while approaching the court with clean hands.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

The above appeals are filed by the plaintiffs calling in question the orders dated 02.06.2025 passed on IA Nos.1 and 2 in OS No.1425/2024 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’], whereunder the Trial Court rejected the said applications.

2. Since the orders impugned in both the appeals are the same, they are taken up together for consideration.

3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit in OS.No.1425/2024 seeking to cancel the registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 executed by them in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and also for a declaration seeking to declare various Sale Deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of subsequent purchasers, consequent to the registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 as not binding on the plaintiffs and for other reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of the suit property. That under a bonafide belief and impression that they were entering into a sale agreement they executed the registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4, to which document defendant No.5 was a confirming party. Defendants Nos.6 to 27 are the subsequent purchasers from defendant Nos.1 to 4. The suit was contested by defendant Nos.1 to 4 as well as the subsequent purchasers, namely defendant Nos.6 to 27.

4. In the suit, the plaintiffs filed IA.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] to restrain the defendants from alienating or creating any encumbrance over the suit property. The plaintiffs also filed IA No.1 to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs. The said applications were opposed by defendants Nos.1 to 4 as well as by defendants Nos.6 to 27. The Trial Court by orders dated 02.06.2025 dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of IA No.1, MFA No.4187/2025 is filed and being aggrieved by the dismissal of IA No.2, MFA No.4185/2025 is filed.

5. Learned Senior counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar along with learned counsel Sri Rakesh Bhatt appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs vehemently contend that the plaintiffs being the absolute owners of the suit property, they have averred in detail in the plaint as to the manner and circumstances under which the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 was executed. That although the document dated 19.08.2017 has been registered as a Deed of Sale, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs they were given to understand that the document that was being registered is an Agreement of Sale. That the payments enumerated in the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017, as sale consideration has not been paid to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as the plaintiffs have received only a sum of about Rs.1.10 crore, although the total sale consideration is mentioned as Rs. 14.00 crores. That the o