ORDER : 1. This petition is by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 542/2020 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (for short, 'the civil Court'). The civil Court by its order dated 12.01.2021 has allowed the petitioner's application (I.A. No. II) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') for temporary injunction directing the petitioner and the respondent to maintain status quo as regards the possession of the suit schedule property viz., the land measuring 14.75 cents in R.S.No. 132 (T.S.No. 421-P1) of Kadri A Village, Mangaluru Taluk within the Mangalore City Corporation (the subject property). However, in the respondent's appeal in M.A.No. 15/2021 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (for short, 'the appellate Court'), the civil Court's order dated 12.01.2021 is set aside and resultantly, the petitioner's application is rejected. As such, the petitioner has impugned the appellate Court's order dated 26.08.2022. 2. The petitioner's case is that M/s Rosario Cathedral Church is the superior owner (wargadar) of the subject property, and Mr. Ebenezer Perla and his brother were in possession of the subject property as the mulgenidars, but Mr. Ebenezer Perla acquired exclusive mulgeni rights to the subject property under registered deed dated 08.10.1906 executed by his brother. Mr. Ebenezer Perla under the sale deed dated 27.08.1907 (Annexure-B) has transferred such mulgeni rights to M/s Evangelical Mission Society in Basel [M/s Basel Mission]. 3. The petitioner has referred to M/s Basel Mission's different declarations of trusts for the management of the subject property [and other properties] and incorporation of a company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has elaborately referred to [a] the declarations of trust in the year 1932-34, [b] revocation of these declarations and subsequent declarations of trusts in the year 1957 and the declarations in 1972, and [c] the interest of M/s United Basel Mission Church Canara and Coorg [M/s UBMC] and M/s United Basel Mission Church In India Trust Association [M/s UBMCITA] in the subject property. M/s. UBMC and M/s UBMCITA are referred to the trust and the company incorporated for management of the subject property. 4. The petitioner has next referred to the proceedings in OS No. 221/1961 and OS No. 7/1991. M/s. UBMC and M/s UBMCITA are referred to the trust and the company incorporated for management of the subject property. 4. The petitioner has next referred to the proceedings in OS No. 221/1961 and OS No. 7/1991. The petitioner contends that the suit in OS No. 221/1961 is about the validity of the resolution to merge M/s UBMC with the petitioner, and the question of title to the subject property is not examined in this suit. The suit in OS No. 7/1991 is under the provisions of section 92 of CPC. The judgment and decree in OS No. 7/1991 is revisited in RFA No. 280/2001, and the judgment in this appeal is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 13670/2012 [and with the leave being granted, this petition is pending consideration in CA No 4813/2017]. It is undisputed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted an order of status quo in these proceedings. 5. The petitioner has contended that in the year 1959, M/s UBMCITA (1) inducted Mr. Sarvothama Amanna in the building in the subject property as a tenant subject to payment of Rs.18.00 as monthly rent and Rs.10.00 as annual rent. On the demise of Mr. Sarvothama Amanna, his wife, Mrs. Edith Amanna, continued in possession of the property, and with the petitioner acquiring the mulgeni rights to the subject property because of the merger of M/s UBMC (2), Mrs. Edith Amanna has paid the agreed rents to the petitioner. She has paid rents accordingly until the year 2011, but after that she has stopped paying rents: (1) It is stated that M/s Evangelical Missionary Society of Basel [the mulgenidar] has incorporated this company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 for management when the mulgeni rights to the subject property was held in trust for M/s UBMC] (2) It is contended that M/s UBMC Malabar and Bombay Karnataka joined the petitioner in the years 1918 and 1958 respectively. 6. The petitioner, for cause of action, has contended that M/s Rosario Cathedral Church [the wargadar] has executed sale deed dated 30.03.2011 transferring its rights in the subject property in favor of Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar, and again Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar and Mrs. Edith Amanna have executed the sale deed dated 25.05.2011 in favour of the respondent. 6. The petitioner, for cause of action, has contended that M/s Rosario Cathedral Church [the wargadar] has executed sale deed dated 30.03.2011 transferring its rights in the subject property in favor of Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar, and again Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar and Mrs. Edith Amanna have executed the sale deed dated 25.05.2011 in favour of the respondent. He has learnt about these transactions on enquiry only after 27.06.2020 when it was noticed that the building in the subject property is demolished, and the respondent cannot be permitted to change the nature of the subject property. 7. The respondent has filed his written statement denying the plaint assertions, and specifically contending that neither M/s UBMC nor M/s UBMCITA has any interest in the property. He is in possession of the subject property as the absolute owner. M/s Rosario Cathedral Church has transferred its wargadar rights in the subject property in favor of Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar who has also purchased the tenancy rights from Mrs. Edith Amanna. The respondent contends that the petitioner, who admits that M/s Rosario Cathedral Church is the wargadar and asserts mulgeni rights, has not produced documents to demonstrate that it has paid annual rent [muli] to the wargadar, and in the absence of such documents, the petitioner cannot assert any right in the subject property as mulgenidar. 8. On possession of the subject property, the respondent contends that the standing structure in the subject property was old and dilapidated, and some part of it was also dilapidated because of rains. Therefore, he has demolished the existing structure for the purposes of reconstruction. As regards the direction to maintain status quo in CA No. 4813/2017, the respondent contends that the dispute is between the petitioner and M/s UBMC, and such order cannot affect the respondent's rights to use the subject property in accordance with law. 9. The civil Court has considered the merits of the petitioner's application for temporary injunction in the light of the aforesaid rival submissions and the questions such as whether the subject property is part of the dispute in O.S. No. 7/1991 which is presently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 4813/2017 and whether the mulgenidar's rights are extinguished. The civil Court has considered the merits of the petitioner's application for temporary injunction in the light of the aforesaid rival submissions and the questions such as whether the subject property is part of the dispute in O.S. No. 7/1991 which is presently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 4813/2017 and whether the mulgenidar's rights are extinguished. The civil Court, on reading the schedule appended to the plaint in O.S. No. 7/1991, has opined that the subject property is mentioned as item No. 93 in such schedule and therefore, it must be concluded that subject property is included in the dispute pending in the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid proceedings. 10. The civil Court has reasoned that the respondent relies upon extinguishment of mulgeni rights in the subject property based on consent letters issued by M/s UBMC and the petitioner in favor of Mrs. Edith Amanna, but these consent letters, being unregistered documents, prima facie will not create any transferable right in favor of Mrs. Edith Amanna who could have only continued in possession of the subject property as sub-mulgenidar. The civil Court has also observed that M/s UBMCITA is not a party to the proceedings, and if there is an order of temporary injunction in favor of the petitioner, the rights of M/s UBMCITA would be seriously prejudiced. Finally, the civil Court has opined that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner and the respondent must be directed to maintain status quo. 11. The respondent has carried the civil Court's impugned order dated 12.01.2021 in appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has tested the civil Court's order as against the touchstone of being in accordance with the settled principles of law and without arbitrariness. The appellate Court, referring to letters dated 07.02.1998 and 03.01.2000 (3) addressed by M/s UBMCITA in favor of Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar and Mrs. Edith Amanna [and these letters are based on the communication addressed by Mrs. Edith Amanna expressing her willingness to transfer her interest in the subject property and mobilize funds for her sustenance], has opined that M/s UBMCITA has transferred mulgeni rights. The appellate Court, apart from the aforesaid correspondence, has referred to the revenue records to opine that these records demonstrate that the respondent has purchased the subject property from Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar. The appellate Court, apart from the aforesaid correspondence, has referred to the revenue records to opine that these records demonstrate that the respondent has purchased the subject property from Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar. The appellate Court has also opined that the respondent, at the stage when the trial is yet to commence, has placed on record material to show lawful possession of the subject property. (3) The respondent has produced a copy of these letters as Annexures-R2 and R5. 12. The appellate Court, as regards the orders of the status quo passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has referred to the petitioner's case that the dispute in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is about the validity of resolution for merger of M/s UBMC with the petitioner, and because this dispute has not attained finality and the respondent is not a party to the proceedings, the orders of status quo will not bind the respondent. Finally, the appellate Court has opined that the civil Court has granted an order of status quo overlooking material circumstances. 13. This Court on 09.11.2022, has granted interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo without changing the nature of the subject property until the next date of hearing and with the change in counsel, a memo is moved for listing of the petition along with an application for vacating the interim order granted by this Court. With the pleadings being complete even on the application, and upon both Sri. Pundikai Ishwar Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. N. Ravindranath Kamath, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, being informed that the petition would be taken up for final disposal, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 14. Sri. Pundikai Ishwar Bhat submits that the appellate Court has interfered with the civil Court's order to maintain status quo because it has misdirected itself to the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard, he draws the attention of this Court to the appellate Court's opinion that the "said Hifzur Rahman Barmawar has sold muli rights in favor of the defendant and hence the defendant has become the wargadar of the property." The learned counsel submits that M/s Rosario Cathedral Church is the wargadar and this entity may have transferred its wargadar rights in favour of Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar but that cannot be construed as transfer of mulgeni rights because the mulgeni rights are vested in the petitioner. 15. Sri. Pundikai Ishwar submits that Mr. Sarvotham Amanna was inducted by M/s UBMCITA [an entity incorporated by the then mulgenidar - M/s UBMC in the 1950s to manage the subject property] only as a tenant, and on his demise, his wife Mrs. Edith Amanna, has continued in possession. Even if Mrs. Edith Amanna has joined in execution of the sale deed in favor of the respondent along with Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar, it cannot be contended that the petitioner's mulgeni rights have been extinguished. The petitioner is entitled for the mulgeni rights because of the resolution to merge M/s UBMC Canara and Coorg with it. 16. Sri. Pundikai Ishwar Bhat relies upon the sale deed dated 30.03.2011 executed in favor of Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar by the wargadar, M/s Rosario Cathedral Church to contend that as of that date only symbolic possession was delivered, and also the terms of the subsequent sale deed dated 25.05.2011 to contend that Mrs. Edith Amanna, who was only a tenant, could not have delivered possession of the subject property. The respondent's claim for possession to the exclusion of the subject property is strenuous and there is case for grant of temporary injunction, or in the least an order to maintain status quo. 17. Sri. N Ravindranath Kamath, on the other hand, submits that respondent has acquired not only warga rights but also the mulgeni rights, and crucially, is put in possession of the subject property by Mrs. Edith Amanna who admittedly was in possession of the subject property. The petitioner cannot dispute that the respondent has acquired warga rights to the subject property with M/s Rosario Cathedral Church executing sale deed dated 30.03.2011; that Mrs. Edith Amanna, who had the benefit of the consent letter/resolution by both by the petitioner and M/s UBMCITA and could have transferred not just the tenancy rights but also the mulgeni rights, has transferred such rights in the subject property to the respondent in joining Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar in executing the sale deed dated 25.05.2011. 18. Sri. Edith Amanna, who had the benefit of the consent letter/resolution by both by the petitioner and M/s UBMCITA and could have transferred not just the tenancy rights but also the mulgeni rights, has transferred such rights in the subject property to the respondent in joining Mr. Hifzur Rahman Barmawar in executing the sale deed dated 25.05.2011. 18. Sri. N Ravindranath Kamath submits that if the petitioner succeeds in the dispute pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be entitled to mulgeni rights subject to the enactment for extinguishment of mulgeni rights, and the respondent, subject to the caveat as aforesaid, cannot dispute such rights. On the question of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, Sri. N Ravindranath Kamath submits that after the aforesaid sale deeds, the revenue records for the subject property are mutated in favor of the respondent who has obtained appropriate building plan and has commenced construction. He relies upon the photograph enclosed to the statement of objections to assert that the respondent has excavated earth for construction of RCC wall for basement. He relies upon the following photograph: 19. The merits of the rival submissions are considered thus. The petitioner claims mulgeni rights to the subject property and its claim as mulgenidar is hinged on the resolution that is the subject matter of the dispute that is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondent is unequivocal that if the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he who has acquired warga rights and symbolic possession from the wargadar and actual possession from Mrs. Edith Amanna, who was indisputably in possession of the subject property, cannot contest such rights and his possession and construction will be such rights but subject to caveat as aforesaid. 20. This unequivocal stand offers perceptive on the question whether the petitioner could succeed in the suit on the strength of the asserted mulgeni rights, but this aspect will have to be finally decided by the civil Court after the parties have let in their evidence, and subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, this Court is of the considered view that though there is elaborate discussion by both the civil Court and the appellate Court on the petitioner's rights as mulgenidar, it may not be decisive at this stage. 21. The petitioner does not dispute that Mrs. As such, this Court is of the considered view that though there is elaborate discussion by both the civil Court and the appellate Court on the petitioner's rights as mulgenidar, it may not be decisive at this stage. 21. The petitioner does not dispute that Mrs. Edith Amanna was in possession of the subject property though it contends that it is only as a tenant and not as a sub-mulgenidar. The respondent is put in possession of the subject property by Mrs. Edith Amanna under a registered transfer. The respondent is unequivocal that if the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he who has acquired warga rights and symbolic possession from the wargadar and actual possession from Mrs. Edith Amanna, cannot contest such rights and his possession and the construction in the subject property will be subject to such rights. 22. Further, it cannot be gainsaid that even if the petitioner succeeds in establishing its rights as mulgenidar of the subject property, the petitioner cannot claim exclusive possession unless possession thereof is recovered in the manner known to law. The respondent has asserted that it has commenced construction in the subject property, and a photograph as extracted above is also placed on record. The petitioner does not dispute the status of the property as seen in this photograph. In the aforesaid circumstances, the question will be whether the subject property must continue as it now exists with the excavation when the parties' respective rights will ultimately be decided by the civil Court as aforesaid subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the proceedings and the evidence let in by the parties. 23. This question must necessarily be considered not just as against the merits of the appellate Court's order but also subsequent event viz., the respondent obtaining the building license and commencing construction with excavation of earth for construction of a basement. It is settled law that the injunction cannot be granted merely because there is prima facie case (in the sense that there is a case for trial) and the Courts must also examine the question of balance of convenience and irreparable injury. It is settled law that the injunction cannot be granted merely because there is prima facie case (in the sense that there is a case for trial) and the Courts must also examine the question of balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Sri Ravindra Kamath is categorical, even when repeatedly queried by this Court, that the construction by the respondent in the subject property would be subject to the outcome of the dispute pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision in the suit. 24. If the respondent proceeds to put up construction in the subject property in the light of this unequivocal stand, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, who could only assert mulgeni rights without claiming exclusive possession unless the possession of the subject property is recovered in a manner known to law, cannot be prejudiced. It would also not be just and fair to let the property to remain as an excavated property lest there is threat to life and the adjacent properties. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court must dispose of the petition dissolving the interim order granted, and the petition stands disposed of accordingly. 25. All the pending applications also stand disposed of by this order.