ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff and learned counsel for respondent-defendant. 2. With consent of learned counsels for parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal. 3. These petitions are arising out of the same suit on two different applications. 4. Parties to the petitions shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 5. In WP.No.29182/2025, the plaintiff has questioned the rejection of his application i.e., I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction against the defendant restraining him, his agents, servants, men etc, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has challenged the said order before the first Appellate Court in M.A.No.1/2022. The first Appellate Court dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 6. In WP.No.29398/2025, the plaintiff has questioned the rejection of his application i.e., I.A.No.3 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, henchmen or any person claiming through or under him from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third party or creating charge over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has challenged the said order before the first Appellate Court in M.A.No.11/2024. The first Appellate Court dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 7. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court challenging both the orders of rejection by the trial Court. 8. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are illegal, perverse and the same are not sustainable and require to be interfered by this Court. It is further contended that a suit in O.S.No.96/2021 came to be filed by the plaintiff for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the suit, two applications came to be filed; one for restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and another not to alienate the suit schedule property or create charge over the suit schedule property. 9. Along with the suit, two applications came to be filed; one for restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and another not to alienate the suit schedule property or create charge over the suit schedule property. 9. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the suit schedule property along with other properties, were partitioned between the plaintiff and his brother, namely Sri Bhyrappa and the name of the plaintiff is forthcoming in the revenue records. Subsequent to the partition, Sri Bhyrappa is alleged to have executed a Sale Deed in favour of the respondent-defendant, by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 20.04.2021. 10. It is further contended that the plaintiff's brother Bhyrappa died on 21.04.2021. He was unmarried and died intestate. During his lifetime, he was suffering from asthma, he was addicted to alcohol and smoking. Taking undue advantage of the weakness of the deceased Bhyrappa, the defendant developed intimacy with an intention to knock off the suit schedule property. Therefore, considering the medical condition of the deceased Bhyrappa, the defendant got executed a General Power of Attorney and the registered Sale Agreement to sell the suit schedule property in his favour. 11. It is also contended that on 20.03.2021, the defendant colluding with the witnesses, had taken the deceased Bhyrappa to the office of the Sub-Registrar and got created the General Power of Attorney and the registered Sale Agreement with regard to the suit schedule property. No consideration amount of Rs.5,32,000/- has been paid to the deceased Bhyrappa as alleged in the Sale Agreement. As on the date of alleged Sale Agreement, the market value of the suit schedule property was more than Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. The deceased Bhyrappa was admitted to the Government Hospital, Molakalmuru on 19.04.2021 for treatment. On the next day, the deceased Bhyrappa was shifted to the District Hospital, Chitradurga for further treatment, but due to failure of the treatment, he died on 21.04.2021. Taking advantage of all these situations, the defendant registered a Sale Deed on the basis of the General Power of Attorney on 20.04.2021, which is one day prior to the death of deceased Bhyrappa. Therefore, the petitioner being the brother of the deceased Bhyrappa, has filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and other consequential benefits. 12. Taking advantage of all these situations, the defendant registered a Sale Deed on the basis of the General Power of Attorney on 20.04.2021, which is one day prior to the death of deceased Bhyrappa. Therefore, the petitioner being the brother of the deceased Bhyrappa, has filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and other consequential benefits. 12. In the said two applications filed by the plaintiff, it is claimed that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property prior to the death of the deceased Bhyrappa and also after his death. In view of the plaintiff being the brother and sole surviving legal heir, he would succeed to the property and he is the legal heir of the deceased Bhyrappa. Hence, he filed a suit against the respondent-defendant. 13. It is contented that the defendant is a stranger. He has no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property and he entered the suit schedule property with bad antisocial elements and tried to interfere with the possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed IA.No.1 seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Similarly, he has also filed IA.No.3 seeking direction to the defendant not to alienate the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. 14. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the trial Court has totally failed to consider necessary ingredients required for consideration of the applications with regard to interference and non-alienation of the suit schedule property. 15. The trial Court dismissed the both applications, which is also confirmed by the Appellate Court. 16. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in these two petitions. 17. It is also contended that the trial Court has mechanically rejected IA.No.3 on the ground that IA.No.1 is rejected and IA.No.3 would not survive for consideration, as the plaintiff has not proved his possession over the suit schedule property and has not produced any material to substantiate the same. Therefore, he contends that the orders passed by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court are illegal, arbitrary and the same require to be set aside. 18. Therefore, he contends that the orders passed by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court are illegal, arbitrary and the same require to be set aside. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-defendant contends that even according to the plaint averments, the plaintiff has stated that the ancestral properties were partitioned and the suit schedule property came to the share of his brother, namely Bhyrappa, who has his absolute right and ownership and has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant on 20.03.2021. Thereafter, he executed a Sale Agreement on the very same day in favour of the defendant with regard to suit schedule property. 19. Learned counsel further contends that on 20.04.2021, on the basis of the General Power of Attorney and the Sale Agreement, registered Sale Deed came to be executed by the defendant himself in his own name. Therefore, he contends that there is no illegality in the registration of the General Power of Attorney, Sale Agreement and the execution of the Sale Deed, as the same are in accordance with law. 20. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent that the question of granting an interim order restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property would not arise, as the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which is an agricultural land measuring 2 acres 13 guntas. 21. Learned counsel for respondent also contends that similarly, in IA.No.3 the question of passing an interim order restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property would not arise, as the plaintiff admitted that he is not the owner of the suit schedule property; he was the brother of the deceased Bhyrappa, who in his own right sold the suit schedule property by executing a General Power of Attorney and Sale Agreement, whereby defendant becomes the absolute owner by way of a registered instrument. 22. Under these circumstances, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have rightly considered and appreciated the materials placed on record and dismissed both the applications of the plaintiff, which does not call for interference. 23. 22. Under these circumstances, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have rightly considered and appreciated the materials placed on record and dismissed both the applications of the plaintiff, which does not call for interference. 23. The short points that would arise for consideration are that: “(i) Whether the plaintiff has made out a good ground to be entitled to an order of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has made out a good ground for restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property?" 24. Admittedly, the properties are ancestral properties that were partitioned between the plaintiff and his brother Bhyrappa. It is also not in dispute that Bhyrappa executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant on 20.03.2021. On the very same day, he has executed an agreement of sale. Based on which, the defendant has executed a registered Sale Deed in his favour. 25. Nevertheless, there is a challenge made to the General Power of Attorney, the Sale Agreement and the registered Sale Deed by the plaintiff, being the brother of the deceased Bhyrappa and the sole legal heir who succeeds to his estate and claims that all the above three documents are concocted, fraudulent and created documents. Therefore, the plaintiff has sought for a declaratory relief in the suit. 26. No documents have been produced by the plaintiff to show his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also an admitted fact that the schedule property is an agricultural land. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that for want of material with regard to the possession of the suit schedule property, IA.No.1 could not have been allowed and accordingly, rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for interference by the defendant, which is affirmed by the first Appellate Court. On this application, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. 27. On this application, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. 27. Coming to the aspect of IA.No.3, where the plaintiff has filed the same with a direction to the defendant not to alienate the suit schedule property and this application would have to be considered independently, not merely for the reason that IA.No.1 is rejected and the plaintiff has not proved the possession for grant of an interim order on the said application, this will have to be dealt with independently within the background of the prayer made by the plaintiff in the suit. In case, the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the very purpose of filing the application would get frustrated, if there were an alienation or third-party right is created by the defendant during the pendency of the suit. 28. Under these circumstances, if the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting I.A.No.3 solely on the ground that I.A.No.1 is rejected on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved his possession, then he would not be entitled to an order of injunction on I.A.No.1. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff would succeed on I.A.No.3, where he sought for an order of temporary injunction against the defendant not to alienate the suit schedule property. 29. Accordingly, I passed the following: ORDER i. W.P.No.29182/2025 is rejected. ii. The impugned order dated 03.01.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.96/2021 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga and the first Appellate Court are affirmed; iii. W.P.No.29398/2025 is allowed. iv. The impugned order dated 19.04.2024 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.96/2021 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga and affirmed by the first Appellate Court in M.A.No.11/2024 is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.3 is allowed. v. The interim order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff. Respondent- defendant is hereby restrained by an order not to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third party or create any charge over the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit;