The court emphasized that a party seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm, with a failure to do so justifying dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 questioning the order passed on I.A.Nos.2 to 4 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S. No.1175/2024 dated 14.11.2024 by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby I.A.Nos.2 to 4 are dismissed.

3. I.A.No.2 is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties, who are stated to be settled lawful possession.

4. I.A.No.3 is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit.

5. I.A.No.4 is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the schedule property and excavating the property for the purpose of putting up construction of any building thereon which is not permitted in the Green Zone Area as indicated in the master plan either independently or collectively, pending disposal of the suit.

6. The plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the plaint, it is stated that one Archak Sanjeevachar, who is grand father of the plaintiffs purchased the lands from Laxmipathy Naidu totally measuring 40 acres under the registered sale deed dated 23.04.1945 in survey Nos.52, 53, 56, 57, 58 and 59. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs' grand father namely Archak Sanjeevachar was the owner and was in possession and the plaintiffs have inherited the suit schedule property and presently the plaintiffs are in settled possession. But the father of defendant Nos.1 to 6 by name Shanthilal Mutha surreptitiously got entered his name in the records of rights dated 28.06.1993. On the strength of said illegal entries made in the name of father of defendant Nos.1 to 6 and also in the name of one Jayanthilal Mutha who started making illegal residential layout and formed 508 sites and sold to various persons but the plaintiffs are in settled possession. Therefore, filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

7. It is the case of the defendants in brief that one Patel Anjane Gowda was the agreement of sale holder and the said Patel Anjane Gowda got decree in a suit filed for specific performance of agreement and it was confirmed in Regular Second Appeal before this Court. Thus, Patel Anjane Gowda has become owner of the suit schedule land. Thereafter, his son has sold the property to the father of defendant Nos.2 to 6 and one Jayantilal Mutha. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not owners of the property and thereafter, the father of defendant Nos.2 to 6 namely Shantilal Mutha and Jayantilal Mutha have formed layout after obtaining requisite clearance from the Competent Authorities and sold to various persons. Thus, prays to dismiss the appeal.

8. When the plaintiffs have filed suit for reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, they have also filed I.A.Nos.2 to 4 for grant of temporary injunction as above stated. The trial Court has dismissed the said applications i.e., I.A. Nos.2 to 4 assigning the reasons that the plaintiffs themselves in the plaint have stated that defendants Nos.1 to 6 have formed layout and 508 sites were formed and sol