JUDGMENT : B M Shyam Prasad, J. These appeals are filed by the common defendant in three suits in O.S.Nos.2918/2017, 2914/2017 and 2912/2017 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short "the Civil Court"). These three suits are filed by the plaintiffs, who are the respondent No. 1 in the corresponding appeals, for permanent injunction asserting that they are the absolute owners of site Nos.1, 2 and 3, carved out to Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North. The plaintiffs - respondents assert that these sites are developed by "Akashavani Vasathi Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha "- for short, 'Society'. The Doddabettahalli Group Panchayat has approved a layout plan for development of the lands in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North and the surrounding lands of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North. The Society has transferred the respective plots either in favour of the said respondent No.1 or their predecessors-in-title way back in the year 1993-94. The plaintiffs - respondents, after their predecessors-in-title, have continued in possession of the respective sites ever since the date of sale by the Society, and the Khata for these sites are made in the name of the aforesaid respondents. 2. The appellants - defendant (including the respondent No.2) were trying to interfere with the plaintiffs - respondent's possession of the aforesaid sites asserting independent title under certain deeds. Therefore, the plaintiffs - respondents were constrained to file the above three separate suits for permanent injunction restraining the appellant - defendants from interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs - respondents filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the CPC") for pendente lite injunction for protection of their asserted possession of the respective plots. 3. The Civil Court, initially, granted ad interim ex-parte order of status quo restraining both the parties until the written statement was filed. The appellant - defendant No.1 (here referred to as 'the appellant - defendant No. 1') and respondent No.2 (defendant No.2 in each of the suits) contested the suits and the applications. In fact, the appellant - defendant and respondent No.2 filed written statements with request to the Civil Court to consider such written statements as objections to the applications. The appellant - defendant No.1 (here referred to as 'the appellant - defendant No. 1') and respondent No.2 (defendant No.2 in each of the suits) contested the suits and the applications. In fact, the appellant - defendant and respondent No.2 filed written statements with request to the Civil Court to consider such written statements as objections to the applications. The Civil Court by the separate orders dated 12.03.1998, which are impugned in the corresponding appeals, allowed the plaintiffs - respondents' applications restraining the appellant - defendant No. 1 (and defendant No. 2) from interfering with the plaintiffs - respondents' possession of their respective sites. Therefore, the appellant defendant No. 1 has filed these appeals impugning the aforesaid orders. The Civil Court has passed the impugned orders on similar grounds. 4. On 18.07.2018, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned orders. When the appeals were listed for orders on I.A. filed by the plaintiffs - respondents for vacating of stay, the learned counsel for the appellant - defendant No. 1 undertook that he will instruct appellant - defendant No.1 not to precipitate or proceed with the construction in the subject properties. On 26.10.2018, this Court taking cognizance of photographs and the other materials on the record, modified the order of stay directing the appellant to maintain status quo. This interim order has been extended from time to time. 5. However, in the meanwhile, the aforesaid plaintiffs - respondents placed on record that construction was being continued despite the interim orders of this Court. The plaintiffs - respondents filed applications for direction to the jurisdiction police to give effect to the interim orders of this Court and also initiate proceedings against the appellant defendant No. 1 for violating the interim orders of this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant defendant No. 1 responded to the applications stating that he had undertaken to ensure that the appellant defendant No. 1 would not continue with any construction on the basis of a text message. The learned counsel was under the impression that the construction was being carried out by a contractor without knowledge of the interim order, but the appellant defendant No. 1 had transferred the subject properties in favour of one Sri Satish Naidu, and the construction was undertaken by the said Sri Satish Naidu. The learned counsel was under the impression that the construction was being carried out by a contractor without knowledge of the interim order, but the appellant defendant No. 1 had transferred the subject properties in favour of one Sri Satish Naidu, and the construction was undertaken by the said Sri Satish Naidu. Thereafter, this Court secured a report from the jurisdiction police who confirmed that construction was stopped albeit after the roof was cast for the ground floor. 6. The purchaser of the subject properties from the appellant under the sale deed dated 19.11.2017, Sri Satish Naidu has also filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 Read with Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Thus, three applications viz., the application by the purchaser, application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC and the application under Section 151 of CPC for direction to the police are pending for consideration. These applications are also taken up for final disposal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - defendant No. 1, plaintiffs - respondents and the applicant who wants to come on record, and also perused the records. 8. The Civil Court, which formulated points for consideration as regards whether the plaintiffs had established prima facie case against defendants and balance of convenience and who would be put to irreparable hardship and injury, summed up the respective cases holding that the plaintiffs - respondents had established prima facie case by producing sale deeds in their favour, layout plan approved by the administrative of Doddabettahalli Group Panchayat and the revenue records - 'B' Khata from B.B.M.P. in their favour. The Civil Court also concluded that the balance of convenience would be in favour of granting injunction order, and that the plaintiffs - respondents would be put to irreparable hard and loss if temporary injunction is not granted. 9. The questions that arise in these appeals are: (i) Whether the civil Court has erred in concluding that the plaintiffs - respondents have made out prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and that the plaintiffs would be put to irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted? and (ii) Whether the impugned orders are either perverse or capricious or arbitrary, and call for interference? 10. and (ii) Whether the impugned orders are either perverse or capricious or arbitrary, and call for interference? 10. The settled law is that prima facie case, one of the necessary indices for grant of temporary injunction against a person, or persons, from interfering with the possession of an immovable property, cannot be confused with prima facie title to the subject property. The courts while considering an application for grant of interim injunction assess whether a plaintiff has made out a case for trial, and if the plaintiff has made out a case for trial, it is concluded that the plaintiff is successful in making out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The question whether a plaintiff has made out prima facie case will have to be adjudged on an assessment of the relative cases of the plaintiff/s and the defendant/s. 11. The civil Court has concluded that the plaintiffs - respondents have made out a prima facie case because they have produced sale deeds and revenue records in their favour for their respective plots, and also because the plaintiffs - respondents have produced a layout plan approved by Doddabettahalli Group Panchayat. Insofar as the appellant - defendant No. 1, the civil Court has recorded that the appellant - defendant No. 1 had admitted that the undisputed original owner of the land in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli, Village, Yelhanka, Bangalore North Taluk, Sri N. Krishnamurthy S/o Narayanappa could have sold some portions of such land in favour of the Society and the Society could have transferred the plots claimed by the plaintiffs - respondents. Further, the civil Court has opined that the sale deeds relied upon by the appellant - defendant No. 1 was with reference to certain extents of lands in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelhanka, Bangalore North Taluk transferred in either acreage and guntas, while the plaintiffs - respondents were claiming title and possession over sites. However, the civil Court has not really assessed whether the plaintiffs - respondents had made out a case for trial in the light of the rival submissions. 12. The appellants - defendant No. 1contend that the original owner of the land in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk was Sri N. Krishnamurthy S/o Narayanappa, and he owned an extent measuring 9 acres and 10 guntas. Sri. 12. The appellants - defendant No. 1contend that the original owner of the land in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk was Sri N. Krishnamurthy S/o Narayanappa, and he owned an extent measuring 9 acres and 10 guntas. Sri. N. Krishnamurthy transferred different portions of this land in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk in favour of different persons including the Society and the predecessors-in title of the appellant - defendant No. 1. The details of the transfers made by Sri. N. Krishnamurthy are as follows: Extent of land transferred Name of the Purchaser Date of the sale deed 04.04 guntas Dr. V.S. Malu 05.12.1979 02.02 guntas Mrs. S.M. Mythali 05.12.1979 02.25 guntas Mr. M.G.K. Iyengar also known as Mr. G.Krishnamurthy 05.12.1979 02.02 guntas Mrs. P. Nalini 05.12.1979 04.04 guntas Mrs. P. Nalini 12.02.1979 01.00 acre Society 07.02.1980 00.24 guntas Society 25.02.1980 00.16 guntas Society 25.02.1980 00.20 guntas Society 25.02.1980 13. The aforesaid Dr. V.S. Malur and three others executed a power of attorney in favour of one Sri S. K. Pursotham on 16.10.1995, and this attorney executed sale deed in favour of the husband of the appellant defendant No. 1, under the sale deed dated 26.10.1995. Thus, Sri A.R. Rao acquired ownership and possession over an extent of 15.04 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The appellant - defendant No. 1, on the demise of her husband, has acquired absolute title to the aforesaid land and she continued in possession. 14. The aforesaid Dr. V.S. Malur and the three others, the vendors of the appellant's husband, were constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.798/1991 against the Society for permanent injunction. This suit in O.S No.798/1991 concluded in a compromise with the aforesaid vendors and the Society filing a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. The Society and the appellant's husband, Shri A. P. Rao have accepted the ownership of the respective extents and the possession thereof with the mutual covenant that neither shall interfere with the possession of the other. A sketch is also a annexed to the compromise petition, but the same is not available either in the court records or with the appellant-defendant or the plaintiffs-respondents. 15. A sketch is also a annexed to the compromise petition, but the same is not available either in the court records or with the appellant-defendant or the plaintiffs-respondents. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No. 1 has tried to juxtapose the layout plan relied upon by the plaintiffs-respondents with the Revenue Sketch of the land in Survey No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk and the correlation of the boundaries as found in the sale deeds executed in favour of the Society to contend that the Society, nor any person claiming under or through the Society, including the plaintiffs-respondents, can assert any right to the northern portion of the land in survey No. 4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant - defendant No. 1 also contends that the State Government has forfeited the land in Survey No. 4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk purchased by the Society under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and later reserved under the provisions of Section 77 (3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The boundaries as mentioned in the Gazette do not tally with the boundaries as found in the sale deeds executed in favour of the society. The appellant - defendant No. 1 contends that the plaintiffs - respondents are unable to establish the identity of the property, and neither the appellant-defendant's ownership nor possession of an extent of 15.04 Guntas in the land in Survey No. 4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk can be disputed by the plaintiffs-respondents especially in the light of the compromise in OS No. 798/91. 16. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents, on the other and contends that there cannot be any real dispute about the plaintiffs-respondents' title to the subject properties or the identity thereof. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents emphasizes that the purchase of 2 acres and 20 guntas in the land in Survey No. 4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk is admitted, the revenue records are mutated in favour of the society, the land stood vested in favour of the Society after the Gazette under section 77 (3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the land is converted for residential purposes and a layout plan is approved by the competent authority. Further, the appellant-defendant's vendors instituted suits in O.S. No.2666/96 and O.S. No.598/91, and these suits are dismissed for default. These suits are dismissed post the compromise in O.S. No.798/1991. The compromise in O.S. No.798/1991 is after the allotment of the sites in favour of the allottees, including the plaintiffs-respondents/ their predecessors-in-title. As such, there cannot be a bona fide dispute about the identity of the subject properties or the possession thereof by the plaintiffs-respondents. 17. It is obvious from the above that the appellant-defendant is not a stranger to the subject properties, and in fact, there is an affirmation by the Society that the appellant-defendant's predecessors-in title was the owner of the an extent of 15.04 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk and that he was in possession thereof in the compromise that is filed in O.S. 798/1991 and accepted by the Court. This compromise decree in O.S. 798/1991 has not been challenged. Further, though certain suits were instituted by the transferors in favour of Sri A.P. Rao, and these suits ultimately came to be dismissed, it would too much of stretch to hold that the predecessors - in - title of the appellant - defendant did not acquire title to the extent measuring 15.04 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk, especially when the decree in O.S.No.798/1991 is declared as not binding or otherwise vitiated. 18. Though the learned counsel for both the parties have relied upon different proceedings, including the proceedings before the revenue authorities (including the proceedings filed impugning the Order permitting residential use of the land measuring 15.04 Guntas in Sy No. 4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk), the jurisdictional police and the electricity supply authorities, to contest possession, none of these per se can be accepted, without being established in a trial, as proof of possession of one as against the possession of the other. Though the appellant - defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs-respondents assert different title, their claim is over the same property. The appellant- defendant No. 1 claims the property to be 15.04 of guntas in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk and the plaintiffs-respondents claim the property to be sites carved out of a separate extent measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk. 19. The appellant- defendant No. 1 claims the property to be 15.04 of guntas in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk and the plaintiffs-respondents claim the property to be sites carved out of a separate extent measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk. 19. It is clear from the material on record that the property in dispute not an open site, and the construction is being undertaken by the applicant who wants to come on record. The interim orders of this Court to maintain status-quo was because of the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant defendant No. 1 that the construction was undertaken by a contractor appointed by the appellant - defendant No. 1. But, it is now beyond dispute that the construction is by the applicant who wants to come on record claiming under a sale deed executed by the appellant - defendant No. 1 even before the date of the present suit. The plaintiffs-respondents have also initiated suit against the applicant who wants to come on record. There is nothing to indicate that the construction was commenced and deliberately continued at the instance of appellant defendant No. 1 despite the orders of this Court by the purchaser who wants to come on record. As such, it cannot be said that the appellant - defendant No. 1 has deliberately acted in breach of the interim orders, and therefore, the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the CPC should be initiated against the appellant - defendant No.1. 20. It is settled that the balance of convenience and irremediable injury are questions of fact, and there will have to be a positive finding on these questions of fact based on the material on record to either grant or refuse temporary injunction. Further, in cases where identity as claimed is not clearly established, the courts would be reluctant to grant temporary injunction lest the right of another person be seriously impaired. Furthermore, The question of balance of convenience and irremediable injury, as well as prima facie case, will have to be examined in the totality of the case. 21. The appellant - defendant No. 1, for reasons already discussed, cannot be called a stranger to the property in dispute. Furthermore, The question of balance of convenience and irremediable injury, as well as prima facie case, will have to be examined in the totality of the case. 21. The appellant - defendant No. 1, for reasons already discussed, cannot be called a stranger to the property in dispute. There is confirmation of title and possession in favour of the predecessors-in-title in OS No. 798/1991, and such confirmation is not challenged in a manner known to law. The plaintiffs-respondents, as of now, are not able to indicate that the appellant - defendant No. 1 is a stranger to the property in dispute, nor are they able to establish identity of the property in dispute qua the claim of the appellant - defendant No. 1. The appellant - defendant's title to, and possession, of the land in Sy No. 4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk would be very tangible unless the a distinct and separate identity of the property as stated in the plaint is established. The property in dispute is transferred in favour of the purchaser even before the commence of the suit, and construction is also commenced. 22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs - respondents have not been able to make out a prima facie case or balance of convenience or irremediable injury. But, the civil Court has not examined any of the aforesaid circumstances in arriving at its conclusion that the plaintiffs-respondents had made out prima facie case or balance of convenience or irreparable injury in their favour. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 23. Simultaneously, this Court will have to observe, while balancing equity, that any construction or development in the property in dispute by the appellant-defendant, or any person or persons claiming under her including the purchaser who wants to come on record, will have to be subject to the ultimate decision in the suit. Further, every third party transferee should be made known of the pending proceedings if any third party right were to be created in the property in dispute. This becomes an imperative as the construction is a multi storied construction, and by a person who is claiming title under the appellant - defendant No. 1. The third parties cannot, inadvertently or otherwise, be drawn in to a litigation leading to multiple proceedings. This becomes an imperative as the construction is a multi storied construction, and by a person who is claiming title under the appellant - defendant No. 1. The third parties cannot, inadvertently or otherwise, be drawn in to a litigation leading to multiple proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, these circumstances cannot be construed as extraneous to the merits of the case. Further, for the reasons discussed none of the applications would survive for consideration, and are accordingly disposed of. For the foregoing the following: ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed and the impugned orders dated 12.03.2018 passed in O.S.Nos.2918/2017, 2914/2017 and 2912/2017 by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are set aside. (ii) Every construction by the appellant, or the purchaser claiming under the appellant in the property measuring 15.04 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk shall be subject to the ultimate decision in the suits in O.S.Nos.2918/2017, 2914/2017 and 2912/2017, and every third party transferee, if there were to be any transfer, should be made known of the pending proceedings. (iii) The civil Court shall dispose of the suits O.S.Nos.2918/2017, 2914/2017 and 2912/2017 as expeditiously as possible, and the parties shall assist in such expeditious disposal without seeking unnecessary adjournments. In view of disposal of the appeals, the pending I.As. in all the appeals do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.