The appellants being aggrieved by the order on

I.A.No.1 dated 09.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.525/2021 by

the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

(CCH-18), have filed this appeal.

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are

as under:

3

That appellants have filed a Suit in O.S.No.525/2021

against the respondent for permanent injunction to restrain

him from alienating and encumbering the Schedule-A and

Schedule-B properties. In the said suit, the appellants have

filed an application I.A.No.1 seeking for the relief of order of

temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from

alienating or encumbering the Schedule-A and Schedule-B

properties. The appellants in support of their application

have filed affidavit alleging that the respondent is involved in

the real estate business and prevailed upon the appellants

herein to execute certain documents so as to enable him to

enter into joint development agreement with M/s. Jaista

Constructions and get their respective shares in the

developed area. Believing the version of the respondent, the

appellants have signed several papers on 14.07.2014

without knowing the nomenclature and the nature of the

documents that has been executed by them. The

respondent along with one Smt.Prema had also executed a

registered sale deed in favour of M/s. Sri. CMR Gnanardhana

4

Trust to an extent of 11,289.10 square feet out of 47,000

square feet in the property bearing No.230/96. The

appellants further submits that they have come to know

about the sale deed executed in favour of the Trust and

obtained the certified copy on 19.09.2020, which has got

reference with regard to the earlier documents said to have

been executed by the appellants and others in respect of

above said 47,000 square feet of land in New No.230/96.

The appellants filed the present suit for bare injunction.

2.2. The respondent appeared and filed objection to

the said suit contending that the suit filed by the appellants

is not maintainable. It is further contended that the

appellant No.1 and her daughters i.e., appellants No.2 and 3

have executed Release Deed dated 14.07.2014 in favour of

respondent and they have released all their rights, interest

etc., in respect of undivided share in the property. In turn

Smt.Sharadamma has released all her rights in respect of

her undivided share in favour of her daughter-in-law

5

Smt.Umadevi. Thus, the respondent claims to be the

absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property

on the basis of Release Deed. On the strength of Release

Deed the name of respondent was entered in the Municipal

records. It is contended that the suit filed by the appellants

is not maintainable. Hence, prayed to reject the

application. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments on

both sides, rejected the application filed by the appellants.

Hence, this appeal.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for appellant.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

the Release Deed executed by the appellants in favour of

respondent, as the respondent has failed to comply with the

conditions mentioned in the Release Deed. Hence, there is

no necessity to file a suit for declaration. Hence, he submits

that the Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the

application. He further submits that the observation made

by the Trial Court in the impugned order that the appellants

6

suit without seeking for the relief of declaration is not

maintainable is arbitrary. Hence, on these grounds, he

prays to allow the appeal.

5.

Perused

the

records

and

considered

the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

6.

It is not in dispute that the appellants have

executed a Release Deed in favour of respondent on

14.07.2014. On the strength of the Release Deed, the name

of respondent is appearing in the Municipal records. The

appellants themselves have produced the copy of Release

Deed. From the perusal of the Release Deed, it is clear that

the appellants have executed