JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and also learned counsel for respondents.

2. This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the rejection of application filed before the Trial Court i.e., I.A.Nos.1 to 3 wherein a prayer was made restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, alienating the schedule property till the disposal of the suit, demolishing the upper floors of the application schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that they are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. It is also the contention that gift deed dated 29.06.2018 executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendant No.2. The sale deed dated 15.01.2021 executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5 by the defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought for the consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendant Nos.3 to 5 and inter alia sought for the relief of temporary injunction as referred above restraining the defendant Nos.3 to 5 interfering, alienating and demolish the upper floors of the application schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the father of the defendant No.1 Sri.B.T.Chandrashekharappa on behalf his son has deposited Rs.334/- to the CITB authority. The father and mother of plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and defendant No.1 died on 25.10.1991 and 22.02.2001 respectively. The suit schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6. All the members were residing in the said property. The children of Sri.B.T.Chandrashekharappa are having equal right to seek for partition in the said property. It is contended that the defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed dated 15.01.2021 in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5 defeating the rights of the plaintiffs. The grievance of the plaintiffs is also that on 12.03.2023, the defendant Nos.3 to 5 have demolished the 1st and 2nd floor portion of the building existing in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have approached the jurisdictional police. Earlier they have filed the suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.1945/2023 and the Trial Court has granted the relief of temporary injunction. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed and in the appeal a direction was given to consider the pending IAs’ since a comprehensive suit is filed before the Court.

4. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has committed an error in not considering the material on record. The defendants have also not denied the fact that CITB has allotted the suit schedule property in favour of Smt.Nanjamma and she has alienated the property in favour of defendant No.1. They have disputed the fact that as on the date of sale i.e., 07.05.1959, the defendant No.1 was aged about 19 years and he was minor and the sale consideration was paid by his father Sri.B.T.Chandrashekharappa on behalf of his son. The defendants have disputed the plaintiffs are also having right to seek partition in the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the defendants in the written statement that it is a self acquired property of defendant Nos.1 and 2. There is no any prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiffs.

5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the plaintiffs and defendants formulated the point whether the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to grant the relief of temporary injunction and answered the point as negative in coming to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out. The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs in the suit are not challenged the registered