The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining status quo in property disputes involving allegations of fraud pending trial, ensuring adequate protection of rights.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc.First appeal is instituted under order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC , 1908 arising out of impugned order dated 17^th April 2015 passed by the learned Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Devenahalli in OS No.24/2015, whereby, the learned trial Judge declined to grant temporary injunction sought by the appellant (plaintiff in the suit) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC . Being aggrieved by such a refusal, the appellant has approached this Court praying inter alia for reversal of the impugned order and for grant of an interim order of status quo in respect of immovable property forming the subject matter of the litigation.

2. The facts as narrated and urged by the learned counsel for the appellant reveal a long chain of devolution of title pertaining the land bearing Sy.No.93 (New no.93/2) measuring 1 acre 14 guntas situated at Hosahalli village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devenahalli Tq. Bengaluru Rural Dist. The appellant specifically asserts that, the schedule properties originally belonged to Krishnoji Kande Rao and the same was lawfully acquired by appellant's grand father by way of registered sale deed dated 11.04.1947. This was followed by a partition deed dated 06.09.1954 wherein, the suit property was allotted to the appellants' father. The appellant as a legal heir and successor, claims continuous possession and ownership flowing from these uncontested documents.

3. The controversy begins with the appellant's assertion that, his father had alienated land bearing Sy.No.92 measuring 2 acres to one Sri Venkatashamappa through a registered sale deed dated 12.04.1965. It is the appellant's case that, the said document was later interpolated to mention Sy.No.93 in place of Sy.No.92., thereby, misrepresenting the property that was conveyed. Building upon this alleged act of manipulation, it is asserted by the plaintiff that, the present first respondent who derived title under the sale deed from Venkatashamappa fraudulently executed an exchange deed dated 24.01.1983 in favour of second respondent even though he had no legitimate title over the suit schedule property. Based on the exchange deed, revenue entries were mutated in the name of second respondent.

4. The appellant specifically contends that this entire chain of transaction thus beginning from erroneous sale, interpolation, exchange and mutation is tainted with fraud and collusion and that the respondents have fabricated the cases of their title by relying on forged interpolated and misleading documents. Upon coming to know of these developments including a collusive partition decree passed in OS No.599/2014 in favour of the second respondent son, (to which the appellant was not a party)

the appellant filed OS NO.24/2015 seeking the relief of declaration, cancellation of the said decree and other consequential reliefs.

5. In the suit, the appellant also filed IA No.1 seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from altering the nature and character of the property, alienating or encumbering or interfering with peaceful possession of the property. The trial Court, however by passing the impugned order dismissed the said application. The trial Court reasoned that, the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case, had not approached the Court with clean hands and balance of convenience favoured the respondents. This is how now the appellant is before this Court challenging the impugned order.

6. Having heard the arguments of both the side and having examined the impugned order in juxtaposition with the pleadings, documents and arguments advanced before this Court, it is evident that the order under challenge suffers from both legal infirmity and factual misrepresentation for the following reasons:

Firstly,