An appellate court will not interfere with the trial court's discretionary order refusing a temporary injunction unless the exercise of discretion is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse, particularly when the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case regarding the identity and possession of the suit property.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed on I.A No. 1 in OS No. 670/2024 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bengaluru Rural District (‘the Trial Court) for short, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction to protect their possession over the suit schedule ‘B’ property came to be rejected, while a limited order restraining the alienation was granted. Being aggrieved by the rejection of protection of possession, the plaintiffs are in appeal.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The case of the plaintiffs in the present suit, OS No. 670/2024, is that the suit property forms part of the land bearing Sy. No. 135 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas situated at Ullalu Village, which originally belonged to their predecessor under a registered sale deed dated 01.02.1960. It is contended that though BDA initiated acquisition proceedings, only 2 acres 16 guntas was acquired and remaining 1 acre 33 guntas was not acquired. It is their further case that out of the acquired portion an extent of 1 acre 1 gunta was subsequently denotified and withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings. According to the plaintiffs, they continue to be owners in possession of the remaining extent and the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest. It is contended that the defendants have created a sale deed dated 25.06.2015 and 13.04.2018 in respect of the very same property which are illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. And on these averments, the suit is filed for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction and I.A No. 1 is filed seeking temporary injunction to protect possession.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case by placing on record the original title deed of the year 1960 and subsequent revenue records. It is argued that BDA had admittedly not acquired the entire extent and further de-notification was issued in respect of 1 acre 1 gunta and therefore the plaintiffs continued to be in lawful possession. It is contended that the Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate these material documents and has erred in refusing injunction. It is further contended that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs and that irreparable injury would be caused if the defendants are permitted to interfere with the property during the pendency of the suit.

4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri K. G. Raghavan appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 would contend that the respondent No. 6 is the absolute owner in possession of land measuring 1 acre 1 gunta in Sy. No. 135, having derived title through a registered sale deed dated 25.06.2015 which was pursuant to an allotment made by the BDA and culminating in the sale deed dated 13.04.2018 in his favour. It is further contended that the property is in actual possession of respondent No. 6 and is being utilized for school activities.

4.1. It is also further specifically contended that the plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit OS No. 600/2019 seeking similar relief of injunction, and the application for temporary injunction filed therein was dismissed on 21.08.2023, and that the said order has attained finality. It is submitted that, the plaintiffs have deliberately suppressed this material fact. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the plaintiffs have deliberately shown incorrect boundaries in order to encroach upon the la