ORAL JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos. 6 to 9 questioning the order dated 04.04.2025 passed on I.A.Nos. I, II and V filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.1824/2024 by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-40), whereby the application filed for temporary injunction was allowed in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants No.1 and 2, their agents, henchmen, successors, General Power of Attorney holders, nominee/s and others on their behalf from trespassing on the suit schedule property and restraining all the defendants and their men from creating encumbrances of any nature in the suit schedule property.

4. The plaintiffs have filed the suit with allegations that the suit schedule property is originally belonged to one late Sri.B.S Siddaramappa, who was the owner, executed a registered Will dated 22.07.1983 in favour of his daughter-in-law by name Smt. Sharadamma wife of S. Srinivas and bequeathed the said suit schedule property. Smt. Sharadamma by virtue of the Will got mutated her name in the revenue records in the year 1995. Smt. Sharadamma died intestate on 31.03.2020 leaving behind plaintiffs, defendant Nos. 3 and 6 as her legal heirs. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 9 executed an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 viz., builders. The agreement of sale was terminated by the defendants No. 3 to 5 on 10.06.2020. At the time of registration of agreement of sale, defendants No.1 and 2 have changed versions and insisted that more clauses be added via an addendum. Taking advantage of the pressure of being at the Sub-registrar's office, defendants No.1 and 2 coerced the plaintiffs and other signatories to execute the documents i.e., memorandum of understanding, addendum to sale agreement, registered General Power of Attorney on the same day.

5. Thereafter, on 22.03.2021 a suit for partition in O.S.No.2021/2021 came to be instituted by defendant No.3. Further, on 07.07.2021, Smt. Nagarathna, daughter of Siddaramappa filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.3473/2021 at the behest of defendants No.1 and 2. Both the suits are pending for consideration before the trial Court.

6. It is submitted that during the year 2022-23, the plaintiffs through their General Power of Attorney Holder have incurred financial burden of more than Rs.10 crores in clearing the suit schedule property of slum dwellers, rehabilitation of slum dwellers, clearing of encroachments etc., and the same has been admitted by defendants No. 3 to 5 in their reply notice dated 25.10.2023. On 26.05.2023, defendant Nos. 6 and 9 issued legal notice to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and cancelled and terminated the agreement of sale, MOU, GPA, Addendum to sale agreement. The defendants No.1 and 2 issued a legal notice to the plaintiffs and other defendants on 21.09.2023. The defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 have also terminated the aforesaid agreement of sale and connected agreements through their reply notice issued to defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiffs have also cancelled the aforesaid documents on 16.12.2023 including agreement of sale executed in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. Defendant No.6 issued a rejoinder notice to the defendants No.1 and 2 on 19.12.2023, unjustifiably and illegally claiming ownership and possession of 50% of the schedule property. On 02.01.2024, the defendants No.1 and 2 have filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.10/2024 which is pending.

7. The plaintiffs have filed a present suit for injunction in O.S.No.1824/2024 on 11.03.2024 against the defendants by mentioning the cause of action that there are various litigations viz., cancellation of agreement of sale, MOU, General Power of Attorney and also defendant No.3 has filed a suit for p