The court upheld that permanent injunctions cannot be granted against infrastructure development where consent agreements exist, according to the Specific Relief Act provisions.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff, questioning the order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron, in O.S.No.438/2023, on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, thereby, the prayer for the relief of temporary injunction is dismissed.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the material placed before the Court.

3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds contending that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties by claiming 1/4^th share in all the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff is the son of defendants No.1 and 2.

5. Further, the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant No.3, his wife along with minor children have entered into agreement of sale dated 05.04.2023 in respect of 01 acre of land in Sy.No.484/1+2 out of total extent of 05 acres 27 guntas. Further, defendant No.3, his wife along with minor children have executed an agreement of lease for 04 acres 15 guntas in the said land. Therefore, pleaded that when the plaintiff is having inherent right of share of 1/4^th in the suit schedule properties, therefore, filed a suit for partition and also filed an application for temporary injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.484/1+2 not to change the nature of land.

6. Though initially the trial Court has granted an ex-parte order of temporary injunction, but subsequently upon hearing both the parties, the trial Court has dismissed I.A.No.1 and an ex-parte order of injunction granted was vacated. Being aggrieved by this, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

7. The grounds urged and the learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that all the suit schedule properties including Sy.No.484/1+2 are ancestral and joint family properties. Whatever agreement of sale between defendant No.3, his wife and two minor children with defendant No.5 is not binding on the share of plaintiff. Therefore, submitted that if defendant No.3 is going to install the project, then it would decline the valuable right of other properties more particularly the portion of the land bearing Sy.No.484/1+2 which cause deprivation of legitimate right of the plaintiff. Therefore, prays for grant of order of temporary injunction.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/defendant No.5 submitted that defendants No.3, his wife along with minor children after understanding that defendant No.5 is going to install wind power project on the land bearing Sy.No.484/1+2 to the extent of 05 acres 27 guntas and accordingly an agreement of sale was executed in respect of 01 acre of land and agreement of lease was executed for remaining 04 acres 15 guntas of land. Therefore, further submitted that the Government of Karnataka has given permission to defendant No.5 for installation of wind power project and accordingly agreement of sale and agreement of lease were executed and when this being the fact, when the plaintiff is claiming 1/4^th share in the other properties, and the land as per lease agreement is only a small extent and for this, the entire project cannot be prevented. Also submitted that in clause (8) and (9) of agreement of sale, defendants No.3, his wife along with minor children being vendors have specifically agreed for carrying out necessary sketch, soil testing, topography work and rerouting before making installation of the power project and now the plaintiff cannot file application for injunction prohibiting defendant No.5 to carryout the project. Further submitted that as per section 20A and section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ,