Srinivasan, J.

These four appeals are directed against the common order passed by a single Judge of this Court sitting on the Original side on four applications filed during the pendency of a suit. For the sake of convenience, the appellants will be referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondent will be referred to as the defendant.

.2. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement for sale said to have been entered orally by the defendant with the plaintiffs in or around August 1991. The sale price was Rs.9,75,000 for each plot. The parties have agreed that the sale consideration should be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff and his wife agreed to purchase the plots because they intended to build a temple for Sri Shiridi Sai Baba and the entire extent of 7.37 acres was needed for such construction in a fit manner. The defendant delivered the original title deeds relating to the suit property to the first plaintiff and also put the plaintiffs in possession. The plaintiffs prepared a draft sale deed and handed over the same to the defendant. The defendant applied for Income Tax Clearance Certificate under Section 230-A of the Income Tax Act and the same was issued by the concerned authority on 30.8.1991. In the draft sale deed, filed along with application for Income Tax Clearance Certificate all the terms of the contract have been clearly set out. Immediately thereafter the plaintiffs tendered the sale consideration to the defendant and requested for execution of the sale deed. The defendant, without receiving the consideration, was postponing the fulfillment of the contract for some reason or other. The plaintiffs constructed a wall encircling the total area of 7.37 acres and fixed a gate on the northern side of the entire extent of land. The gate is provided at the entrance of the land, which is owned by the plaintiffs themselves. Anyone can have access to the entire extent of the land only through that gate and there was no other access. The plaintiffs employed their own security to protect the land. The construction of the temple began in July 1993 and the plaintiffs constructed the same in the northern part of the land which belonged to themselves. The building materials are stored in the southern part of the land which belonged to the defendant. Two huts were put up in that part of the land for use of the labourers and watchman. The defendant, who was postponing the execution of the sale deed, kept the plaintiffs in the dark by making false promises and prevented the plaintiffs from taking effective steps to complete the specific performance. The only intention of the plaintiffs was to build a temple along with facilities like prayer hall, nandavanam etc. But for the agreement and delivery of possession, the plaintiffs would not have indulged in constructing a temple. The plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the sale consideration to the defendant and they have necessary funds therefor. In June 1994, a member of the defendant’s family trespassed into the suit property and also gave a complaint against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had to give a counter complaint to the police. The plaintiffs have come up with a prayer for specific performance and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession of the suit property. With the above case set out above in the plaint, the plaintiffs applied in O.A.No.55/94 for an injunction restraining the defendant during the pendency of the suit from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. In O.A No.54/94, the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property in any manner pending disposal of the suit. By O.A.No.53/94, the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from putting up any construction on the suit property. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, it is also alleged that the temple constructed