Injunctions require proof of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm; previous rejections do not preclude new applications with distinct claims.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs questioning the order dated 12.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.IV filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.968/2021 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru¹, thereby, the application filed for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction not to change the nature of lands is dismissed.

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that certain sale deeds, as set out in the prayer in detail, are null and void and for cancellation of the sale deeds, which are not binding on the plaintiffs. Also, the relief claimed is that directing the defendants to pay the sale consideration amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization and for other consequential reliefs.

4. The sum and substance of the case made out in the plaint by the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule land and defendant No.1 approached plaintiff No.1 and offered to purchase the suit property for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.42,00,000/- and accordingly, an agreement of sale was executed on 09.10.2009. At the time of execution of said agreement of sale, defendant No.1 had paid 10,00,000/- as an advance amount and the remaining balance amount would be paid at the time of registration. However, even after lapse of 5 years, defendant No.1 had not come forward and did not get the sale deed registered by paying the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.32,00,000/-. However, defendant No.1 without getting registration of sale deed by paying balance sale consideration amount of Rs.32,00,000/-, introduced defendant No.3 and then the plaintiffs negotiated with defendant No.3 in respect of suit schedule properties and entered into an another agreement of sale between the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 for total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

5. It is pleaded that the entire negotiations were held between defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 and the plaintiffs were precluded by defendant No.1. Later, as per the instructions of defendant No.1, the plaintiff Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 have agreed to execute the registered agreement of sale dated 19.04.2014 in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have paid advance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to defendant No.1, but defendant No.1 has not paid the said amount to the plaintiffs. Further, defendant Nos.1 and 3 insisted that the plaintiffs to execute a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of defendant No.2 enabling them to obtain the conversion of the suit schedule property from agricultural into non-agricultural land and later on through such GPA, a sale deed was executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 as if the plaintiffs have authorized them to sell the suit land in favour of defendant No.2. Therefore, it is pleaded that all the defendants played fraud and thereafter, defendant No.3 sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.2. On these allegations filed the suit for declaration.

6. In reply to the plaint, the defendants have made pleadings in the written statement and the sum and substance of the written statement is that defendant Nos.