The court emphasized that a plaintiff must demonstrate prima facie ownership, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm to secure a temporary injunction.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff questioning the order passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.712/2024 dated 14.10.2024, by the Court of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore, whereby the trial Court has directed both the parties to maintain status quo until disposal of the suit.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the plaint 'B' schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants and one Sai Durga developers have entered into a Joint Development Agreement (herein after referred to as 'JDA' for short) on 17.02.2017 on the land belonging to the defendants. There are four flats were constructed as Flat Nos. 105, 106, 107 and 108. As per the terms of the JDA agreement, 50% of the flats belonged to defendants and remaining 50% to the developer. Accordingly, Flat Nos.105 and 108 falls to the share of the defendants and Flat Nos.106 and 107 falls to the share of developer. The said developer has sold Flat No.107 to one Sri. Jeevan Papa Venkataswamy through sale deed dated 06.01.2020 and sold the other Flat No.106 to the plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 17.10.2023. Thus, the plaintiff has become owner of flat No.106 which is 'B' schedule property in the apartment known as 'DADHA HOUSE'. But, the defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction. Also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying to grant an order of temporary injunction. But the trial Court without granting an order of temporary injunction, has ordered both the plaintiff and defendants to maintain status quo. Being agreed by it, only granting an order of status quo, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

4. It is the case of defendants that there was a Joint Development Agreement between the defendants and the developer and there was sharing of 50% flats in between the defendants and the developer. But the said developer has not completed the construction of apartment in all respects and left abandoned at halfway of construction and thereafter, they have sold Flat Nos.106 and 107 to one Jeevan Papa Venkataswamy and plaintiff respectively and in this regard, the defendants have filed Commercial Suit in Com.O.S.No.810/2021 and the Commercial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction on 03.12.2021. Thereafter, the Commercial Court has vacated the interim order on 17.10.2023. Against the order vacating the temporary junction, the defendants have preferred Commercial Appeal No.420/2023 and this Court in the said appeal has ordered to maintain status quo. In the interregnum, after vacating the order of temporary injunction and order to maintain status quo by this Court in Commercial Appeal, the developer has sold Flat No.106 to the plaintiff. Also, it is submitted that the defendants are in possession over Flat No.106 and the purchase made by the plaintiff at Flat No.106 is nothing but harassing the defendants and causing interference with the possession of defendants. Therefore, the order of status quo granted by this Court is correct and justified, which needs no interference by this Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser of Flat No.106 of 'B' schedule