JUDGMENT : The plaintiff in O.S.No.1783/2021 has preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) challenging the order of the trial court dismissing his application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction against the defendants pending disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff’s case is as below : He purchased 1 acre 05 guntas of land in Sy.No.17/10A of Thanisandra Village, Krishnara japuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk from one Kuppuswamy under a registered sale deed dated 29.04.1994 and also purchased another bit of land in same survey number from Lakshmamma W/o Kuppuswamy under another sale deed dated 29.09.2003. In the schedule to the plaint, he has described the land in his possession as 1 acre 06 guntas with 04 guntas of kharab land situate in Sy.No.17/10A, present Sy.No.17/10D of Thanisandra village with boundaries on four sides. His actual grievance is that though in the sale deeds under which he purchased the aforesaid pieces of land as 17/10A, the survey conducted in the year 2018- 19 showed that the land that he purchased was actually situated in Sy.No.17/10D and that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds actually confirmed his possession in Sy.No.17/10D, not 17/10A; and there was a mis-description of the survey number in the sale deeds. 2.1. He alleged interference by the defendants with his possession of the land. When he tried to fence his land, the defendants stopped the work. He has also pleaded that the defendants have taken up construction by encroaching upon his land, and in this background he has claimed the reliefs of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property, mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorized construction, damages of Rs.50,000/- and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession. 2.2. The plaintiff also filed an application as per IA No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff stated that in view of construction work having been taken up by encroaching on the plaint schedule property, temporary injunction was necessary to be issued. 3. The defendants’ main contention is that the plaintiff purchased the land in Sy.No.17/10A and it was acquired by the BDA. The plaintiff has filed the suit with an intention to grab their property. 3. The defendants’ main contention is that the plaintiff purchased the land in Sy.No.17/10A and it was acquired by the BDA. The plaintiff has filed the suit with an intention to grab their property. They are in possession of 2 acres 21 guntas in Sy.No.17/10D of Thanisandra village, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 24.01.1975. It is also their contention that even if it is assumed that the plaintiff has any interest in the land bearing Sy.No.17/10D, according to the plan produced by the plaintiff, there is a Rajakaluve on the eastern side. There appears to be encroachments on the northern side of his property and therefore, in order to gain what he lost by way of encroachment, the plaintiff might be laying claim on their property. 3.1. So far as construction activity is concerned, it is stated that the first defendant has entered into a joint development agreement with the second defendant for developing their property. They denied encroachment. 4. The trial court has reasoned that the plaintiff has not been able to show his possession over the plaint schedule property and thus, prima-facie case for grant of temporary injunction has not been established. To arrive at this conclusion, the trial court has held that the sale deeds pertaining to plaintiff’s property show that he purchased the land in Sy.No.17/10A only; he has not produced any document to show that he is in possession of land in Sy.No.17/10D and the plaintiff has also not obtained amended sale deed from his vendors. Further findings are that the plaintiff’s land is situated in Sy.No.17/10A only and it was acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority for formation of Arkavati Layout. As per the acquisition notification, Sy.No.17/10D measures 5 acres and it belonged to Sonnegowda. This land was notified for acquisition for formation of Arkavati Layout. But the endorsement dated 15.06.2013 issued by the BDA would show that a decision was taken to denotify the first defendant’s property in Sy.No.17/10D; the plaintiff failed to produce a document indicating exclusion of his land from notification. In this view, the plaintiff’s land vested with the government and thus it is difficult to say that plaintiff has possession of plaint schedule property. It is also another observation of the trial court that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact of acquisition proceeding. 5. In this view, the plaintiff’s land vested with the government and thus it is difficult to say that plaintiff has possession of plaint schedule property. It is also another observation of the trial court that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact of acquisition proceeding. 5. Sri Ananth Mandgi, learned senior counsel argued on behalf of Sri Amit A Mandgi, for the appellant. Sri B.N.Jayadeva and Sri Gopalakrishna, advocates appearing respectively for respondents 1 and 2 addressed their arguments. Sri B.N.Jayadeva also filed his written submissions. 6. The first and foremost point of argument of Sri Ananth Mandgi was that the failure of the trial court to understand the scope of the suit resulted in erroneous order being passed on the application for temporary injunction filed by plaintiff/appellant. He argued that though the sale deeds under which the plaintiff purchased the property recited that two pieces of land in Sy.No.17/10A were sold to him, the purchased land is not situated in the said survey number, rather it is a part of land in Sy.No.17/10D. There was a mis-description of survey number in the sale deeds; the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds confirm the plaintiff’s possession in Sy.No.17/10D. Taking me through the survey report he tried to emphasize that the plaintiff is in possession of land to an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas in Sy.No.17/10D only. He argued that whenever there is mis-description of property, a declaratory suit is maintainable and in this regard he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SHEODHYAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. SANICHARA KUER AND ORS [MANU/SC/0283/1961]. 6.1. Sri Ananth Mandgi further argued that the trial court ignored a notification issued by the BDA to the effect that the plaintiff’s land i.e., plaint schedule property was also dropped from acquisition. This notification was in fact produced, but it has been wrongly held that the plaintiff has not produced any document relating to denotification of his property. He also referred to a caveat petition filed by the defendant and argued that in the cause title of the caveat, the plaintiff is shown to be a resident of a house in Sy.No.17/10D. This notification was in fact produced, but it has been wrongly held that the plaintiff has not produced any document relating to denotification of his property. He also referred to a caveat petition filed by the defendant and argued that in the cause title of the caveat, the plaintiff is shown to be a resident of a house in Sy.No.17/10D. He also referred to a sale deed dated 28.07.2016 executed by the first defendant and his wife to argue that even in this sale deed, the western boundary of the land sold by them in Sy.No.18/1 is shown as land belonging to the plaintiff. Therefore the defendants admit the plaintiff’s possession. They have also admitted the construction work. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the trial court ought to have restrained the defendants from going ahead with construction. He submitted that not only prima-facie case exists, but also balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff. If the defendants complete the construction, the plaintiff will certainly find it difficult to obtain possession in view of nature of construction. 7. Sri B.N.Jayadeva and Sri Gopalakrishna retorted the argument of Sri Ananth Mandgi by raising the points that the trial court has rightly exercised discretion to dismiss the application for temporary injunction. In an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, interference with trial court’s order is unwarranted unless there is perversity in the findings. Their main point of argument was that when the plaintiff challenged the acquisition notification in the writ petition, he mentioned the survey number as 17/10A. Therefore he possesses the land in Sy.No.17/10A; the defendants have taken up construction in the land belonging to them in Sy.No.17/10D, upon which the plaintiff cannot lay claim at all. He also argued that the defendants were not aware of any survey that the plaintiff would refer to, and that none of them was notified before conducting survey. These being the factual aspects, if injunction is granted, the defendants will suffer greater hardship than the plaintiff as they have invested huge sums of money in the construction work. He argued that the plaintiff failed to pass the test of establishing prima-facie case and this has been rightly observed by the trial court. He submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact of acquisition proceedings and in this view also the plaintiff is not entitled to claim temporary injunction. 8. He argued that the plaintiff failed to pass the test of establishing prima-facie case and this has been rightly observed by the trial court. He submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact of acquisition proceedings and in this view also the plaintiff is not entitled to claim temporary injunction. 8. This Court, while deciding an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, can interfere with the impugned order, only if it is found that the trial court has not properly exercised its discretion. If any of the documents, having bearing on the controversy is not considered, it can be said that the order under challenge is the outcome of improper application of mind. 9. Now if the impugned order is read, it seems that the trial court appears to have proceeded on the ground that the plaintiff has sought declaration of title in respect of land to an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas plus 4 guntas of kharab in Sy.No.17/10A which was subsequently assigned the number 17/10D. Of-course, it cannot be denied that the manner in which the plaint is drafted gives rise to entertain such an impression, but if para 7 of the plaint is seen, what is stated is that in the year 2011-12, the plaintiff learnt that he was in actual possession of land in Sy.No.17/10D, not Sy.No.17/10A. The boundaries mentioned in his sale deeds would only confirm his possession in Sy.No.17/10D. It is also averred in para 8 of the plaint that in the survey that was held during the year 2018-19, 04 guntas of kharab land was attached to plaint schedule land and thus the plaintiff claims possession of 1 acre 10 guntas of land. Whether plaintiff can lay claim on the kharab land or not, but his sale deeds disclose right over 1 acre 06 guntas of land. Actual issue to be tried in the suit is whether the plaintiff purchased the land in Sy.No.17/10A or 17/10D. 10. If there is mis-description in a document, it can be corrected by executing a rectification deed. If for any reason rectification cannot be obtained, person affected by wrong description can file a suit seeking declaration. In the case of SHEODHYAN SINGH (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “7. We are of opinion that the present case is analogous to a case of misdescription. If for any reason rectification cannot be obtained, person affected by wrong description can file a suit seeking declaration. In the case of SHEODHYAN SINGH (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “7. We are of opinion that the present case is analogous to a case of misdescription. As already pointed out the area, the khata number and the boundaries all refer to plot No.1060 and what has happened is that in writing the plot number, one zero has been missed and 1060 has become 160. It is also important to remember that there is no plot bearing No.160, in khata No.97. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the High Court was right in holding that this is a case of misdescription only and that the identity of the property sold is well established namely, that it is plot No.1060. The matter may have been different if no boundaries had been given in the final decree for sale as well as in the sale certificate and only the plot number was mentioned. But where we have both the boundaries and the plot number and the circumstances are as in this case, the mistake in the plot number must be treated as a mere misdescription which does not affect the identity of the property sold. The contention of the appellants therefore with respect to this plot must fail.” 11. Here the plaintiff complains of misdescription of survey number, not the boundaries. It is true that even in the sale deeds of the predecessors in title of the plaintiff, the survey number is mentioned as 17/10A only and this continued in the plaintiff’s sale deeds also. The trial court, by observing that the plaintiff ought to have obtained amended sale deeds from his vendors, has failed to understand the scope of the suit and this has misdirected the trial court to record a finding that the plaintiff’s possession in the schedule property is not forthcoming. 12. The plaintiff has produced some survey documents which show his possession in the land bearing Sy.No.17/10D. The defendants may have contended that the survey was conducted in their absence, but until and unless, they are set-aside by a competent authority, they have presumptive value. 13. Another finding of the trial court is that the plaintiff has not produced any document regarding denotification of his land. The defendants may have contended that the survey was conducted in their absence, but until and unless, they are set-aside by a competent authority, they have presumptive value. 13. Another finding of the trial court is that the plaintiff has not produced any document regarding denotification of his land. This finding is apparently wrong in as much as the trial court has ignored an endorsement issued by the BDA. This was in fact produced, but not looked into. The endorsement dated 04.06.2013 clearly shows that 1 acre 06 guntas of land in Sy.No.17/10D belonging to Vasudevappa i.e., the plaintiff was excluded from acquisition action. 14. There are two more documents that are not considered by the trial court. The first one is the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District granting conversion of 1 acre 06 guntas of land in Sy.No.17/10D into residential purpose, and this order was passed on the application of the plaintiff. The second document is a letter dated 27.03.2012 addressed by the Tahsildar of Bengaluru East Taluk to the Assistant Commissioner of Bengaluru North Sub Division. This letter indicates that the revenue records pertaining to the plaintiff required correction as he was found to be in possession of two pieces of land in Sy.No.17/10D though in his sale deeds the survey number was mentioned as 17/10A. All the more important is what is stated in the written statement filed by the first defendant, in para 8(ii) and (iii) that are extracted here. 8(ii) “It is further submitted that even if the boundaries do match, the same does not confer any title on the plaintiff in respect of land in Sy.No.17/10D when he has purchased the land under sale deed dated 19.09.1994 being and as it is in Sy.No.17/10A and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same”. 8(iii) “The further claim of the plaintiff that there were variations between the boundaries in the sale deeds and boundaries of the land in the physical possession of the plaintiff even if true and it is for the plaintiff to establish the same”. (emphasis supplied) 15. Therefore it is possible to draw an inference at this stage that the first defendant is also aware of the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of land in Sy.No.17/10D. 16. (emphasis supplied) 15. Therefore it is possible to draw an inference at this stage that the first defendant is also aware of the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of land in Sy.No.17/10D. 16. In the caveat petition filed by the defendants, the plaintiff is shown to be a resident of house in Sy.No.17/10D, and in the sale deed dated 28.07.2016 executed by the first defendant and his wife in favour of Mr. Mohammed Shafiq Arshad in respect of their land in Sy.No.18/1, the western boundary is shown as land belonging to the plaintiff. These two documents are also not considered by the trial court. 17. The trial court has held that there is suppression of facts by the plaintiff as he has not stated anything about acquisition. I do not think that the plaintiff has framed the suit in the background of acquisition proceeding. Therefore the observation of trial court is not correct. 18. The above analysis shows that the plaintiff’s possession is forthcoming in the land bearing Sy.No.17/10D. If survey was not conducted in the presence of defendants, the trial court may order for survey once again depending on the circumstances emerging during trial. The defendants have also contended that the plaintiff appears to have laid claim on their land in order to make good the loss of land due to encroachment by others. These are all triable issues, thus prima-facie case is established. 19. So far as balance of convenience and comparative hardship is concerned, it is not in dispute that the defendants have taken up construction; and the first defendant has entered into a joint development agreement with second defendant. If really there is encroachment by the defendants on the property belonging to the plaintiff, the latter finds it difficult to recover possession from the persons to whom the defendants may sell the apartments or flats after completion of construction work. This leads to another round of litigation. In fact, the defendants were directed to file an affidavit stating that they would not claim equity in case the plaintiff would succeed in the suit but they did not file the same. 20. The defendants might have started construction; and they may suffer loss if construction is stopped. This leads to another round of litigation. In fact, the defendants were directed to file an affidavit stating that they would not claim equity in case the plaintiff would succeed in the suit but they did not file the same. 20. The defendants might have started construction; and they may suffer loss if construction is stopped. But this cannot be the reason for denying order of injunction, for if the construction is coming up in the plaintiff’s property, he must get the benefit of decree if he succeeds in the suit. A condition may be imposed on the plaintiff for protecting the interest of the defendants. For all these reasons, I hold that balance of convenience as also the comparative hardship lie in favour of plaintiff. 21. Therefore with this discussion, a clear conclusion can be drawn that the trial court has erred in dismissing the application for temporary injunction. In this view the following: ORDER : Appeal is allowed. Order dated 19.07.2021 on IA No.1 filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1783/2021 on the file of the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set-aside. The application is allowed and the defendants are restrained from constructing any building in the plaint schedule property till disposal of the suit. The plaintiff is hereby directed to execute a bond undertaking to make good the loss that the defendants may suffer on account of stoppage of construction, in case his suit is dismissed. The plaintiff shall execute the bond before the trial court within four weeks from today. If he fails to execute the bond, the order of temporary injunction granted now will not come into force and the plaintiff shall not seek extension of time for execution of bond either before or after expiry of four weeks. In the facts and circumstances, the parties may go for early trial and they may request the trial court for early disposal. In the paper book of the appeal, certified copy of the issues framed by the trial court is filed. It appears that the trial court has not focused issue No.1 to the actual controversy. The trial court may reframe the issues. IA Nos.1/2021 and 2/2021 do not survive for consideration. They stand disposed of accordingly.