The court upheld the trial Court's decision to grant a temporary injunction based on the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm at the interlocutory stage.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

This Misc.First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC is filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala, in OS NO.41/2023 on I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC wherein, the learned trial Court was pleased to allow the application and temporarily restrained the defendants, their men, agents and anyone claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'Schedule - A to C' properties (excluding the house), until disposal of the suit.

2. The present appeal seeks to challenge the said order on the ground that, learned trial Court erred in granting the temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs- respondents without appreciating the facts in their entirety and the legal position governing the dispute.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are: that the respondents herein had instituted OS No.41/2023 before the trial Court seeking relief of specific performance in respect of properties described in the suit schedule as item Nos.A, B, C and D. According to the plaintiff, he and the defendants are known to each other for over decades and had several business transactions since the year 2004. The plaintiffs case is that, in view of the financial difficulties faced by the appellants, the first appellant, on behalf of her husband (second appellant) who is said to be the actual owner of the suit properties, entered into an agreement to sell the properties to the plaintiff.

4. It is specifically contended that, the first agreement dated 25.11.2015 pertain to the properties in Sy.No.573 and 574/2, measuring 4.80 cents and 1.82 cents respectively, of DM Samudra Village. The consideration was fixed at Rs.4 lakhs of which, Rs. 2 lakhs was allegedly paid as advance. A second agreement executed on the same date related to land in Sy.NO.299/2 of Ramapura village, Marathahalli, measuring 2.36 cents for which, Rs. 2 lakhs was paid towards a total consideration of Rs.10 lakhs. According to the respondent/plaintiff, these agreements were later renewed on 31.12.2021, and the sale consideration was revised to 24 lakhs including an additional property in Sy.No.298/1 measuring 1.17 cents. It is the further case of the plaintiff that, thereafter, a final agreement dated 22.7.2022 was executed for a total sale consideration of Rs.26 lakhs, and the plaintiff claims to have paid Rs.25 lakhs. In multiple trenches and was ready and willing to pay the remaining 1 lakh in two installments - Rs.50,000 by way of Cheque/DD and Rs.50,000/- at the time of registration.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that, despite his readiness and willingness, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time. Further, he alleges that, he was put in possession of Schedule A to C properties (excluding the house) and symbolic possession of Schedule-B which was said to be in the custody of a mortgagee, one Sri C.Krupakara. It was also alleged that the defendants began interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and even attempted to dispossess the said mortgagee from Schedule-D property. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance and an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an injunction against the defendants.

6. The defendants, on the other hand, categorically denied the existence of any such agreement and refuted the allegations made by the plaintiff. They contend that, the properties were their absolute and self- acquired properties and tha