JUDGMENT 1. Challenging impugned order dtd. 25/1/2022 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Belgavi, in O.S.No.276/2021 on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, this appeal is filed. 2. Appellant herein is plaintiff, while respondents were defendants in suit and will be referred as such. 3. Plaintiff filed O.S.no.276/2021 seeking : a) for declaring sale deed dtd. 6/12/2013 executed by defendant no. 2 by himself by acting as power of attorney of defendant no.1 are null and void and not binding on plaintiff company; b) for declaring sale deed dtd. 11/8/2021 executed by defendant no. 2 in favor of defendant no. 3 and 4 is null and void and not binding on plaintiff company; c) directing defendant no. 1 to execute forthwith sale deed in favor of plaintiff company; d) Restraining defendants, their agents, successor-in, interest, henchman or anybody claiming under them or on their behalf by way of perpetual injunction from interfering with and disturbing the plaintiff's company peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of suit properties; and such other reliefs. 4. In said suit, plaintiff - company filed IA no.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter 'CPC' for short), praying for temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties till disposal of suit. 5. In affidavit filed in support of application, it was stated that suit properties were situated at Ningenahatti village. That plaintiff company was engaged in manufacture of sugar and allied products and cogeneration of electricity at its manufacturing unit situated in Channehatti-Rajgoli KH tq: Chandgad on Kanataka-Maharastra State border. It was stated that plaintiff was owning certain lands in State of Karnataka also. It was further stated that Hemarus Technologies Ltd. incorporated on 27/1/2006, changed its name to Hemarus Industries Ltd. on 28/12/2010, when it was taken over by plaintiff company. Its name was changed again to Olam Agro India Ltd. on 22/7/2014. thereafter on 16/4/2016, plaintiff was converted from public to private company. Thus, plaintiff was successor entity of Hemarus Industries Ltd. 6. It was stated that defendant no.1, Sri Vasu Rao A.N. was Vice President of Hemarus Technology Ltd. and was authorized to look after its transactions including purchase and sale of lands / properties for and on behalf of company. thereafter on 16/4/2016, plaintiff was converted from public to private company. Thus, plaintiff was successor entity of Hemarus Industries Ltd. 6. It was stated that defendant no.1, Sri Vasu Rao A.N. was Vice President of Hemarus Technology Ltd. and was authorized to look after its transactions including purchase and sale of lands / properties for and on behalf of company. He was also authorized to appear and act on behalf of company before all authorities. 7. Likewise defendant no.2 was employed as liaisoning officer of company charged with responsibility of providing necessary documentation and negotiation with land owners. He also approached local authorities for approvals, submitting application etc. Thus, company had placed enormous trust on defendants no.1 and 2 and were given ample power and free hand in matter of establishing sugar factory at Channehatti-Rajgoli KH village. It was also stated that they were paid a total sum of Rs. 3, 64, 72, 950.00 for purchase of 168.47 hectares of land in installments between 27/5/2006 and 17/11/2006. Though plaintiff intended to purchase land directly in his name, in view of legal bar under provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter 'KLR Act' for short), it could do so only after obtaining prior permission. Therefore, it authorized defendant no.1, under a Board resolution, to enter into agreement of sale with owners of land including suit properties herein. He was directed to obtain general powers of attorney from land owners to enable plaintiff company to make use of land immediately pending permission from State government. Defendant no.1 was also required to file application under Sec. 109 of KLR Act. As instructed, defendant no.1 negotiated with owners of suit properties along with defendant no.2 where under land owner Sri Kedari Bhima Badiger executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of defendant no.1 registered with SubRegistrar Belagavi on 1/9/2006 wherein defendant no.2 signed as one of witnesses. Plaintiff company handed over Rs. 3, 51, 000.00 to defendant no.1 for paying it to Kedari Bhima Badiger as consideration, on 1/9/2006 acknowledged under voucher no.278 signed by defendant no.1. 8. Similarly defendants no.1 and 2 transacted with Smt.Dundavva Bhima Kamati in respect of Rs. no.56. Agreement of sale was executed by her on 3/8/2006 for which Rs. 50, 000.00 was paid as advance out of total consideration of Rs. 1, 92, 500.00. 8. Similarly defendants no.1 and 2 transacted with Smt.Dundavva Bhima Kamati in respect of Rs. no.56. Agreement of sale was executed by her on 3/8/2006 for which Rs. 50, 000.00 was paid as advance out of total consideration of Rs. 1, 92, 500.00. In respect of said land also registered irrevocable power of attorney was executed on 7/9/2006, in favour of defendant no.1. Rs. 50, 000.00 was handed over by plaintiff to defendant no.1 under voucher no.205 signed by him. Thereafter, on request by land owner, even balance sale consideration was paid to her at time of execution of power of attorney. Even registration charges of Rs. 13, 800.00 was also paid to defendant no.1 acknowledged under voucher no.296. As per suggestion of defendant no.1 that purchase of land by company would face technical hurdle and obtaining permission from Deputy Commissioner was likely to consume time, sale deed would be got executed in their name on strength of irrevocable power of attorney and retransfer suit properties to plaintiff after obtaining permission. Plaintiff agreed to proposal and thereafter suit properties were got registered in name of defendant no.1 under two separate sale deeds dtd. 15/2/2007. It was however, stated that plaintiff took possession of suit properties immediately after execution of sale deeds and put them to its use, which position prevail till date. 9. It was further stated that defendant no.1 had abused faith and trust reposed in him by plaintiff and fraudulently purchased lands bearing Sy.no.757 of Rajgoli BK and Sy.no.38 in Channehatti from funds provided by plaintiff in name of defendant no.2. When plaintiff sought explanation, defendant apologized and directed defendant no.2 to transfer said lands to plaintiff. Thereafter, when plaintiff began taking punitive action against defendant no.1 for abuse of authority, he left plaintiff during year 2009-10, by informing plaintiff that he had executed power of attorney in favour of defendant no.2 to pursue application for permission before Deputy Commissioner. Said power of attorney dtd. 18/7/2013 was unregistered. Thereafter, in blatant act of fraud, defendant no.2 got transferred suit properties in his name by misusing power of attorney dtd. 18/7/2013, under two separate sale deeds dtd. 7/8/2013 and 6/12/2013 respectively. He also got names mutated in record of rights. 10. Said power of attorney dtd. 18/7/2013 was unregistered. Thereafter, in blatant act of fraud, defendant no.2 got transferred suit properties in his name by misusing power of attorney dtd. 18/7/2013, under two separate sale deeds dtd. 7/8/2013 and 6/12/2013 respectively. He also got names mutated in record of rights. 10. After coming to know about transaction, when plaintiff sought explanation from defendant no.1, he pleaded ignorance and as remedial measure filed objections to mutation of name of defendant no.2. Two suits in OS.no.655/2014 and OS.no.73/2014 were also filed for declaration that power of attorney dtd. 18/7/2013 executed by him in favour of defendant no.2 was null and void and for consequential annulment of sale deeds. In said suits, defendant no.1 had unequivocally admitted to above narrative. Thereafter in active collusion with defendant no.2, he filed memos in above mentioned suits and withdrew suits, without assigning any cogent reasons. Upon realizing said fact, plaintiff had filed applications for being impleaded as plaintiff and said applications were pending. 11. However, thereafter plaintiff realized that defendant no.2 with tacit support of defendant no.1 sold land bearing Rs. no.83 in favour of defendants no.2 and 4, under registered sale deeds dtd. 11/8/2021, though plaintiff was been in possession of both suit properties. On strength of sale deeds defendants no.2 and 4 sought mutation of their names in record of rights and began interference with plaintiff's possession of suit properties. 12. It was further stated that plaintiff had lodged complaint against defendant no.1 with Market Police Station on 4/12/2019 and not finding expected progress, suits were filed. It was stated that plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of suit properties and defendants no.1, 3 and 4 were seeking to interfere with it on strength of illegal and fraudulent sale deeds. It was asserted that since plaintiff had prima case and even balance conveyance as well as comparative hardship were in his favour, therefore, it was entitled for temporary injunction. 13. Said applications were opposed by defendants by filing respective written statements cum objections to I.As.1 and 2. Defendants vehemently denied plaint averments as false and unsubstantiated. Defendant no.1 specifically contended that as per plaintiff's case itself, it was well aware of all the transactions and therefore ought to have pursued its interest instead of waiting for all these years and filing belated suit. Defendants vehemently denied plaint averments as false and unsubstantiated. Defendant no.1 specifically contended that as per plaintiff's case itself, it was well aware of all the transactions and therefore ought to have pursued its interest instead of waiting for all these years and filing belated suit. It was stated that defendant no.1 had executed power of attorney in favour of defendant no.2 and plaintiff had no authority to question same. Insofar as OS.no.655/2014 and OS.no.73/2017, it was stated that plaintiff had deliberately induced defendant no.1 to file suit against defendant no.2 with intention to extract money. It was further assert that defendant no.1 had revoked GPA dtd. 1/8/2016 by public notice published in Tarun Bharath Daily Newspaper on 3/8/2019 and plaintiff could not question same. Defendants no.3 and 4 while denying plaintiff's assertions, contended that they were bonafide purchasers for value and in possession of purchased property as indicated by revenue records and specifically contended that without any cause of action suit was filed. 14. On consideration, trial Court framed points for consideration: "1. Whether prima facie case lies in favour plaintiff's company? 2. Whether balance of conveyance is in favour of plaintiff company? 3. Whether plaintiff company will be put to irreparable loss if injunction is not granted? 4. What Order?" 15. After answering point in affirmative, points no.2 and 3 negative and point no.4 by dismissing application. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff is in appeal. 16. Sri Shreevatsa Hegde, learned counsel for plaintiff / appellant submitted that impugned order was contrary to recognized principles of law governing injunction. It was submitted that, originally Hemarus Technologies Ltd. was incorporated with objective of manufacturing sugar and allied products, near border of Karnataka - Maharashtra states and having properties in both states. Subsequently its name was changed to Hemarus Industries Pvt. Ltd. and nature from public to private company. Thereafter plaintiff company M/s Olam Agro India (Pvt.) Ltd. incorporated under Companies Act 1956 took over said company. 17. Learned counsel submitted that as stated in application/affidavit in IA no.II, plaintiff was in possession of suit properties which were purchased with funds provided by plaintiff, in name of defendant no.1 until plaintiff secured permission for purchase/holding agricultural lands and as plaintiff intended to put them for its use immediately. As such, plaintiff was in possession of suit properties, notwithstanding fact that revenue records stood in name of defendants. 18. As such, plaintiff was in possession of suit properties, notwithstanding fact that revenue records stood in name of defendants. 18. It was further submitted that, though defendants no.1 and 2 claimed to have purchased suit properties, they failed to produce any material to substantiate how they had arranged consideration amount for said sale deeds. It was contended that said manner of acquisition was not hit by provisions of Benami Transactions Act when defendants no.1 and 2 both were appointed by plaintiff company. It was submitted that prior to execution of GPAs / sale deeds, original owners of suit properties had executed agreements of sale in favour of defendant no.1 on behalf of Plaintiff Company. Irrevocable registered general powers of attorney executed in favour of defendant no.1 was testimony to fact that plaintiff intended to use it immediately. Further admission by defendant no.1 about filing of OS.no.655/2014 and OS.no.73/2017 in which he had sought cancellation of power of attorney executed in favour of defendant no.2 and for declaration of sale deeds as null and void, also as corroborating plaintiff's assertion of being in possession. 19. It was submitted that legal bar under Sec. 79(B) of KLR Act for purchase / holding of agricultural lands by company was reason for plaintiff to transact through defendants no.1 and 2 who were appointed by plaintiff company as Vice President and Liaison Officer respectively. It was contended that immediately after execution of irrevocable general powers of attorney, plaintiff was in possession and using same for parking of vehicles etc. Therefore, claim of defendants of being in possession merely on basis of entries in revenue records cannot be sustained. 20. It was submitted that while passing impugned order trial court referred to plaintiff assertions and concluded prima facie case in favour of plaintiff. But, while discussing on irreparable loss and balance of conveyance, it erroneously brushed aside admission by defendant no.1, stating that pleadings do not bind parties. Therefore, impugned order suffered from contradictory reasons. 21. 20. It was submitted that while passing impugned order trial court referred to plaintiff assertions and concluded prima facie case in favour of plaintiff. But, while discussing on irreparable loss and balance of conveyance, it erroneously brushed aside admission by defendant no.1, stating that pleadings do not bind parties. Therefore, impugned order suffered from contradictory reasons. 21. Learned counsel relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Chandrakantaben V/s Vadilal Bapalal Modi and others reported in (1989) 2 SCC 630 , wherein it was held that agent cannot be treated to be in joint possession merely because he was actually collecting rent from tenant and possession of agent was possession of principal and in view of fiduciary relationship, agent cannot be permitted to claim his own possession. 22. He also relied upon another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anathula Sudhakar V/s P Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 , wherein it was held that when a property is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed, then possession follows title, to contend that said observations came to aid of plaintiff herein. 23. On other hand, Sri. MM Patil, learned counsel for defendant no.1, Sri Ram P. Ghorpade and Rajashekar Burji, learned counsel for defendant no.2 and Smt.Pallavi Palekar, learned counsel for defendants no.3 and 4 opposed appeal and supported impugned order. 24. At outset, it was contended that defendants being owners of suit properties in terms of registered sale deeds, application for temporary injunction could not be maintained against true owner. It was contended that entries in record of rights, in respect of suit properties were standing in name of defendants, which corroborated their possession. It was specifically contended that suit properties were purchased from respective original owners directly in name of defendants in their individual names and capacity. Subsequently, they got their names entered in revenue records. Mutation in revenue records was never objected to by plaintiff. Defendants no.3 and 4 contended that as on date of purchase, revenue records were standing in name of their vendor who had acquired under registered sale deeds. Considering same, they purchased suit properties in bonafide manner and were put in possession. They vehemently denied that possession was with plaintiff at any point of time. Defendants no.3 and 4 contended that as on date of purchase, revenue records were standing in name of their vendor who had acquired under registered sale deeds. Considering same, they purchased suit properties in bonafide manner and were put in possession. They vehemently denied that possession was with plaintiff at any point of time. It was also contended that trial Court had allowed IA.no.I and granted temporary injunction against defendants no.2 to 4 from alienating suit properties during pendency of suit, and thereby sufficiently protected interest of plaintiff in suit properties pending trial. 25. They also submitted that without seeking adjudication of claims of company under Sec. 187 of Companies Act, 2013 before appropriate forum plaintiff had no voice to substantiate its contentions herein. It was also contended that absolutely no records were produced to establish that consideration for sale deed was paid by plaintiff - company. On above grounds, sought for dismissal of appeal. 26. In support of submissions, reliance was placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji V/s Maniben Jagmalbhai and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 258, wherein it was held that permanent injunction cannot be granted against true owner, to buttress plaintiff's application. It was submitted that said ratio was also referred to and followed by this Court in Chanabasappa v/s Leelabai and others reported in HCR 2022 Kant 735. On above grounds, they sought for dismissal of appeal. 27. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and record. 28. From contentions urged, only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether impugned order passed by trial Court dismissing I.A.no.II filed by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC calls for interference? 29. This is plaintiff's appeal against rejection of its application for temporary injunction against interference with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property. Admittedly, revenue records in respect of suit properties do not stand name of plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that in view of legal bar against company purchasing and holding agricultural land, it authorized defendant no.1 by Board resolution to purchase suit properties in his name pending obtaining permission for purchased by company. It also claims to have provided sale consideration to defendant no.1 for purchase, under acknowledgement and immediately after execution of sale deeds in favour of defendant no.1, plaintiff company entered possession and was using suit properties for parking of vehicles. 30. It also claims to have provided sale consideration to defendant no.1 for purchase, under acknowledgement and immediately after execution of sale deeds in favour of defendant no.1, plaintiff company entered possession and was using suit properties for parking of vehicles. 30. However, defendants while totally denying plaintiff's version are contending that they were owners in possession of suit properties in their own right under registered sale deeds. 31. While passing impugned order trial Court referred to pleadings of defendant no.1 in OS.no.655/2014 and OS.no.73/2017 to hold that plaintiff had established prima facie case. But while considering balance of conveyance and irreparable loss, it observed that there are no recitals in agreement of sale to indicate that possession was handed over to plaintiff company while registered deed indicated that possession was delivered to purchaser under respective sale deeds and plaintiff had failed to substantiate how it came in possession. It also observed that entries in record of right had presumptive value and plaintiff failed to rebut same by producing any documents or affidavits of neighboring land owners. It therefore, held that in absence of possession, plaintiff was not entitled for injunction and balance of conveyance did not lie in favour of plaintiff. 32. Insofar as first contention of plaintiff that Board resolution was passed authorizing defendant no.1 to purchase suit properties in his name but on behalf of plaintiff - company and therefore, defendant no.1 had acted as agent. In view of ratio in Chandrakataben's case (supra), possession of agent has to be treated as possession of principal. But, in light of total denial of creation of any agency by defendant no.4, said aspect would be matter of trial. Insofar as contention regarding admission of nature of transaction in pleadings in two earlier suits, it is seen that defendant no.1 has contended that they were at behest and under force of plaintiff. 33. However, when plaintiff claims to have been in possession from date of purchase of suit properties by defendant no.1 i.e. 15/2/2007, and when it claims to have been using them, failure to produce any material to substantiate such user would be a material circumstance to be taken into account. Mere contention that defendants failed to produce any material to indicate manner and mode of arranging and paying sale consideration to original owners would not be sufficient at this stage. It would be matter of evidence. 34. Mere contention that defendants failed to produce any material to indicate manner and mode of arranging and paying sale consideration to original owners would not be sufficient at this stage. It would be matter of evidence. 34. Insofar as reliance upon ratio in Anathula Sudhakar's case (supra), that title follows possession would not be justified. Hon'ble Supreme Court in said case has held that in case of rival claims of possession in respect of open land, legal position would be that possession would follow title. In instant case, in view of registered sale deeds standing in name of defendants, until their legality or validity is finally adjudicated after trial, they would prima facie establish title and consequently of possession also. 35. Trial Court has rightly observed that failure of plaintiff to produce any substantial material to indicate possession, such as affidavits of neighboring land owners etc would be fatal at this stage. 36. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Mehtab Khan Vs. Kusub Khan reported in 2013 (9) SCC 221 , has held that unless order passed is untenable or perverse, it cannot be interfered with. It is further held that even if view taken by trial Court was one of possible views, there would be no scope for interference. None of grounds urged by plaintiff would succeed in coloring impugned order either as untenable or perverse. 37. There is yet another reason for me to come to above conclusion. As per plaint averments, when plaintiff became aware of activities of defendant no.1 contrary to its interest and it intended to take action against him, defendant no.1 left plaintiffcompany, way back in year 2009-10. Plaintiff also pleaded that it had initiated action against defendant no.2 in year 2014-2017 when OS.nos.655/2014 and 73/2017 were got filed. Such being case, present application filed in year 2021, would be highly belated. In light of said reason, refusal to grant injunction would be fully justified. Hence, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed.