CAV JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for appellants and respondents in both the appeals.

2. These two appeals are filed by appellants/plaintiffs against the order dated 10.09.2024 on the file of XXVII Adddl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH-9) for rejection of application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.3277/2024 and O.S.No.3278/2024. The factual aspects of both the cases are similar against the same respondents, but appellants are different and reasons given by the Trial Court is similar and hence taken up both the appeals together for common consideration.

3. The appellants in M.F.A.No.6478/2024 in the interlocutory application, in a suit for permanent injunction, sought the relief of temporary injunction against the respondents contending that the property morefully described in the schedule which measures 4494 sq.ft by virtue of rent agreement dated 20.09.2018 executed by M.S.Venkatesh, the previous land lord of ‘A’ schedule property, the plaintiff came into possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘B’ schedule property as a tenant, he has paid the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and monthly rent is Rs.32,500/- and during the subsistence of the lease agreement, owner of the property approached defendant Nos.1 and 2 for a hand loan in view of his financial exigencies and offered the property as security by way of execution of registered sale deed dated 18.01.2022 but, the defendants have attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from ‘B’ schedule property and hence filed the suit and also sought for the interim relief.

4. In M.F.A.No.6562/2024, other tenant also re-iterated the very same averment in the plaint claims that there was a sale agreement dated 20.09.2018 and monthly rent was Rs.47,000/- and said Venkatesh had executed a lease agreement and similar set of facts is stated that defendants have purchased the property on 18.01.2022. The defendants who are common in both the suits appeared and filed written statement stating that they have purchased the property and possession was delivered on the date of registration itself. The tenants who were previously occupying the ‘A’ schedule property had vacated much prior to the execution of the sale deed and claiming of possession in both the suits in respect of ‘B’ schedule property without any factual foundation and the same is purely imaginary. It is also contended that immediately after purchasing of the property, they have surrendered the electricity connection with intend to demolish the existing structure on the ‘A’ schedule property to facilitate the construction of new building and hence they are in possession is baseless. Based on the pleadings of the plaintiffs and defendants in both the cases, the Trial Court framed the point for consideration whether the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case, balance of convenience and any irreparable injury.

5. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, comes to the conclusion that possession has not been established and both plaintiffs have admitted that the property was purchased by the defendants on 18.01.2022 to facilitate the construction of new building and hence they claimed that they are in possession is baseless. Based on the pleadings of plaintiffs and defendants in both the cases, the Trial Court framed the points for consideration whether the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case, balance of convenience and any irreparable injury. The Trial Court having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that possession has not been established and both plaintiffs have admitted the property was purchased by the defendant on 18.01.2022. The Trial Court also taking into note of the averment made in the plaint that it was not a sale deed it was only a loan transaction attributed by the plaintiffs and comes to the conclusion that tenants will not have the rights to challenge or object the registered sale deed executed by their landlord unless there a