JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. MFA No.3048/2024 is filed by defendant No.2 challenging the order passed on I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC and MFA No.3061/2024 is filed by defendant No.2 calling in question the order passed on I.A.No.VIII filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, in O.S.No.1/2024, (common order) dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, D.K. District , Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court , thereby, the applications, I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and I.A.No.VIII filed by defendant No.2 was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that two sale deeds dated 09.10.2023 registered on 13.10.2023 and three sale deeds dated 09.10.2023 registered on 16.10.2023 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule properties 'A to E'. Also, sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction. 4. It is the sum and substance of the plaintiffs' case in brief that they are the owners of the suit schedule 'A to E' properties. Though the sale deeds have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.2, but those are by playing fraud and without sale consideration and the possession of the suit schedule properties is not handed over to defendant No.2. With these pleadings, the plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the above said reliefs. 5. The defendants have appeared through their Advocates and filed written statement and it is the defence of the defendants that the plaintiffs have received the sale consideration amount and executed the registered sale deeds by going out to defendant No.3/Sub Registrar’s office and put their signatures, thump impressions and delivered the possession of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 vehemently submitted that the plaintiffs have intended to offer the suit schedule properties for sale to defendant No.2 for a total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.8,00,00,000/- and defendant No.1 had issued three cheques dated 13.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.6,75,00,000/- and also the defendants have paid balance sale consideration amount thereto. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 vehemently submitted that the plaintiffs have intended to offer the suit schedule properties for sale to defendant No.2 for a total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.8,00,00,000/- and defendant No.1 had issued three cheques dated 13.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.6,75,00,000/- and also the defendants have paid balance sale consideration amount thereto. The plaintiffs have handed over the possession to the defendants and the defendants are in possession over the suit schedule properties and it is very much reflected in the sale deeds; therefore, the allegations made in the plaint are not correct. Hence, when the plaintiffs have gone to office of Sub-Registrar's and after perusal of the sale deeds, put their signatures and affixed their thumb impressions and also given their photos by physically before the defendant No.3/Sub Registrar’s office. Therefore, there is a complete sale transaction and the possession was handed over to the defendants. 7. It is further submitted that all these averments are reflected in the sale deeds and also by subsequent conduct of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have handed over the possession to the defendants and they are in possession. Hence, submitted that the application I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and once the plaintiffs have started interference with the possession of the defendants therefore, I.A.No.VIII is filed, but the Trial Court has allowed I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs and dismissed the I.A.No.VIII filed by defendant No.2. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and grant an order of temporary injunction in favour of defendant No.2. 8. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 places reliance on the following judgments: i. MRS. R M FLAVIA AND ORS V/S SRI MANJU AND ORS.,RFA No.106/2021 ii. DAHIBEN V/S ARAVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) DIED THROUGH LR'S AND OTHERS, (2020) 7 SCC 366 iii. VIDHYADHAR V/S MANIKRAO AND ANOTHER, (1990) 3 SCC 573 iv. SANGISAPU SEETARAMA RAO AND OTHERS V/S B V S MURTHY, 2025 SCC Online A.P. 1116 v. YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH (DEAD THROUGH LR'S) V/S RAM BACHSN DEVI AND OTHERS, (2023) 20 SCC 149 vi. PADHIYAR PRAHLADJI CHENAJI (DEAD TRHOUGH LR'S V/S V MANIBEN JAGMALBHAI (DEAD THROUGH LR'S) AND OTHERS, (2022) 12 SCC 128 vii. SMT. URMIL GUPTA V/S COMMISSIONER, 2017 SCC Online H.P. 1096 viii. PADHIYAR PRAHLADJI CHENAJI (DEAD TRHOUGH LR'S V/S V MANIBEN JAGMALBHAI (DEAD THROUGH LR'S) AND OTHERS, (2022) 12 SCC 128 vii. SMT. URMIL GUPTA V/S COMMISSIONER, 2017 SCC Online H.P. 1096 viii. SOPAN SUKHDEA SABLE AND OTHERS V/S ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS, (2004) 3 SCC 137 ix. PREMJI RATANSEY SHAH AND OTHERS V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, (1994) 5 SCC 547 x. DALPAT KUMAR AND ANOTHER V/S PRAHLAD SINGH AND OTHERS, (1992) 1 SCC 719 xi. MAHADEO SAVLARAM SHELKE AND OTHERS V/S PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (1995) 3 SCC 33 xii. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED V/S VALECHA ENGINEERING LIMITED AND ANOTHER, 2020 SCC Online HP 4041 xiii. THIMMAIAH V/S SHABIRA AND OTHERS, (2008) 4 SCC 182 xiv. DAMODHAR NARAYAN SWALE (DEAD THROUGH LR'S V/S TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE AND OTHERS, (2023) 19 SCC 175 xv. VEERABHADRAPPA V/S MAYAPPA, ILR 1993 KAR 161 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents vehemently submitted that under the facts and circumstances in detail averred in the plaint, the defendants have played fraud in getting execution of the registered sale deeds and the defendants have not paid sale consideration; whatever the cheques paid by the defendants for Rs.6,75,00,000/- dated 13.10.2023 were dishonoured. 10. Further, in spite of request made by the plaintiffs for balance sale consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/-, the same was not paid by the defendants. Therefore, whatever the sale deeds are executed by the plaintiffs, the same were under challenge and are obtained through fraud and this is prima facie demonstrated in the plaint averments along with materials produced before the Trial Court. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly considered the two applications filed by the plaintiffs and defendants respectively and justified the order, which needs no interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs places reliance on the following judgments: i. SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN V/S JAGAN DEVI AND ORS, 2025 Supreme (SC) 1676 ii. BHAILAL V/S RAM KUMAR, 2002 Supreme(MP) 1109 iii. DEVINDER KAUR V/S BIMLA DEVI, 2006 Supreme (P & H) 762 iv. RAMABHAI BECHARBHAI BARAIYA V/S LEGAL HEIRS VISHNUPRASAD MANIBHAIGAUR AND ORS, 2024 1 CurCC 488 v. RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI V/S HARISH AMBALA CHOKSI & OTHERS, 2024 Supreme(SC) 1107 vi. SAU SHAKUNTALABAI V/S PREMSINGH, 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1967 vii. K RAVI PRASAD REDDY V/S G GIRIDHAR, 2022 Supreme(AP) 242 viii. DEVINDER KAUR V/S BIMLA DEVI, 2006 Supreme (P & H) 762 iv. RAMABHAI BECHARBHAI BARAIYA V/S LEGAL HEIRS VISHNUPRASAD MANIBHAIGAUR AND ORS, 2024 1 CurCC 488 v. RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI V/S HARISH AMBALA CHOKSI & OTHERS, 2024 Supreme(SC) 1107 vi. SAU SHAKUNTALABAI V/S PREMSINGH, 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1967 vii. K RAVI PRASAD REDDY V/S G GIRIDHAR, 2022 Supreme(AP) 242 viii. SANTOSH GAJANAN VAIBHASE V/S VILASRAO SADHURAO GHUGE, SA No.456/2019 dated 03.04.2023 ix. SMT KHATUNABI AND ORS V/S NASIRKHAN AND ORS, WP No.100296/2022 x. SMT SHAKUNTHALAMMA AND OTHERS V/S SMT KANTHAMMA AND OTHERS, 2014 SCC Online Kar 12022 xi. KEWAL KRISHAN V/S RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS, (2022) 18 SCC 489 xii. VEENA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES V/S DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (F/R) AND ANOTHER, (2022) 7 SCC 1 xiii. RAM KHELAWAN MALLAH @ RAM KHELAWAN NISHAD AND OTHERS V/S BASANTI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE MUNILAL KARMAKAR AND OTHERS, 2025 Supreme (jhk) 639 xiv. MARATHAL (DIED) AND ANOTHER V/S KANNIAMMAL (DIED) AND OTHERS, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 5153 xv. WANDER LTD AND ANOTHER V/S ANTOX INDIA P LTD., (1990) Supp SCC 727 xvi. NEON LABORATORIES LIMITED V/S MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND OTHERS, (2016) 2 SCC 672 12. Upon hearing the arguments from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and respondents and perusal of the materials placed on record, the following points would arise for my consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs make out prima facie case so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant No.2 makes out prima facie case that I.A.No.VIII filed for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction is liable to be allowed? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs make out case for balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiffs so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? iv. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant No.2 makes out a case for balance of convenience in his favour so as to grant an order of temporary injunction upon the application I.A.No.VIII filed for temporary injunction? v. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiffs are able to demonstrate that they will be put into loss and injury? vi. v. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiffs are able to demonstrate that they will be put into loss and injury? vi. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then defendant No.2 would be put into loss and injury? vii. Whether the order passed by the Trial Court requires any interference by this Court? 13. The application I.A.No.IV filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC praying to grant an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendant Nos.1 and 2, their men, servants, agents or anybody claiming under them from trespassing into the suit schedule properties, alienating, mortgaging and creating any third party interest over the suit schedule properties, pending disposal of the suit. 14. The application I.A.No.VIII filed by defendant No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of CPC praying to grant an ad-interim order or temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs, their men, servants or anybody claiming under them from trespassing into possession and enjoyment of suit properties, pending disposal of the suit. 15. Upon considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, the application I.A.No.VIII filed by defendant No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC is not maintainable for the reliefs claimed in the application and he places reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court on making interpretation of Order XXXIX Rules 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) of CPC and upon the application filed by the defendants, whether an order of temporary injunction is maintainable for the reliefs claimed by defendant No.2. 16. It is worthwhile to refer the judgment by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA AND OTHER (supra), at paragraph No.33, held as under: "33. 16. It is worthwhile to refer the judgment by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA AND OTHER (supra), at paragraph No.33, held as under: "33. The correct legal position as is clear from the statutory provision is as under: (i) Both the plaintiff and the defendant can maintain an application U/o XXXIX Rule 1(a) of the Code for the reliefs set out in the said provision; (ii) Insofar as relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1 (b) and (c) is concerned, such a relief is available only to the plaintiff and the defendant cannot maintain an application for the said reliefs in a suit filed by the plaintiff, irrespective of the fact that his right to such relief arises either from the same cause of action or a cause of action that arises subsequent to filing of the suit. However it is open to the defendant to maintain a separate suit against the plaintiff and seek relief provided under Order 39 Rule 1(b) and (c) of the Code. (iii) In cases which do not fall under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief of injunction in its discretion, if it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court and nothing in this Code shall limit or otherwise affect such inherent power of the court. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to for our consideration in the negative". 17. Upon the application I.A.No.VIII filed by defendant No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying to restrain the plaintiffs from trespassing into possession over the suit schedule properties, this liberty cannot be granted to defendant No.2. Upon considering the reliefs claimed by the defendants, both the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 can make out applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for the reliefs set out in the said provision, but in so far as the reliefs contemplated under Order XXXIX Rules 1(b) and 1(c) of CPC is concerned, such relief is available only to the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 cannot make an application for the said reliefs in a suit. Hence, applying the principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of SMT. Hence, applying the principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA AND OTHER (supra), I.A.No.VIII filed by defendant No.2 is not maintainable. In this regard, the Trial Court has correctly held that the legal position, which needs no interference by this Court. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 submitted with reference to the sale deeds dated 09.10.2023 and 13.10.2023 got registered on 13.10.2023 16.10.2023. As per the sale deeds, there is a recital that the possession was delivered to defendant No.2 and highlighting the recital in the sale deeds argued that when the sale deeds are registered and the plaintiffs by going to the 3 rd defendant/Sub-Registrar office with all their knowledge and wisdom have put their signature and thump impressions and also attended for taking photographs. Therefore, it is prima facie demonstrated that the plaintiffs have parted with the possession in favour of the defendants; but, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the total sale consideration of land is Rs.8,00,00,000/- and on 13.09.2023 defendant No.2 issued three cheques for a sum of Rs.6,75,00,000/- towards part sale consideration, but they were dishonoured. Hence, the plaintiffs have not received any sale consideration. 19. When this being the allegation and counter-allegation between the parties, this is to be tried during full-fledged trial, whether the plaintiffs have received the sale consideration amount from defendant No.2 or not. Though, the plaintiffs have admitted that they have gone to the 3 rd defendant/Sub-Registrar’s office and requested him to peruse the draft sale deeds, but it is reply given by the Sub-Registrar that the sale deeds have been uploaded in the computer and are not available for the restoration and on the closing hours there was compelling situations to get registered sale deeds and therefore, the plaintiffs have pleaded averments on these aspects. When these facts are pleaded in the plaint, the issue is to be considered in the trial whether the plaintiffs had received full consideration or not and it is the primary question to be considered in the suit; hence, at this stage if the defendants are permitted to take advantage of the registered sale deeds and its recital that the possession was handed over to the defendants and the defendants make alienation, then that would cause injury to the plaintiffs. In this appeal, the only thing to be considered is regarding who is in possession over the suit schedule property. 20. Defendant No.1 and 2 have issued notice before filing the Caveat. However, the very fact that the defendants have mentioned the address in the notice to be delivered to the plaintiffs that would show that the plaintiffs are residing in Garadady village, Belthangady taluk. This itself show prima facie case that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit schedule property. 21. Moreover, regarding the sale consideration as above discussed, the plaintiffs have produced three copies of cheques and bank return memo regarding dishonour of cheques. Therefore, it is a question to be considered during the trial whether there is a valid payment of sale consideration amount, the materials produced are, copy of complaint before the Police that the 2 nd defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs; therefore, this also prima facie show the facts that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit schedule property. 22. It is the case of the defendants that from the year 2014 till the year 2019, the defendants had been making payment of amount to the plaintiffs in cash and paid a sum of Rs.5,10,00,000/-, when it is case made out by the defendants that they have paid such huge amount in cash, then there should have been some receipts having paid the amount in cash to the plaintiffs, but the defendants have not produced any documents in this regard that the plaintiffs have acknowledged receipt of such huge amount in cash. 23. Further the defendants have produced the account statement, but there is no satisfactory averment or documents from whom the defendant No.2 had received such huge amount and paid to the plaintiffs. Therefore, prima facie it is revealed that when the defendants are asserting that more than Rs.5,00,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiffs, but for which, there is no acknowledgment of receipt by the plaintiffs is the question for consideration and if as per defendant No.2, such huge amount was paid through cash, then what was the necessity for the defendants once again to issue 3 cheques worth Rs.6,25,00,000/- as it would amount to payment of the amount twice to the plaintiffs. Hence, it is revealed prima facie that the defendants do not have consistency in their pleadings regarding payment of sale consideration to the plaintiffs. 24. Hence, it is revealed prima facie that the defendants do not have consistency in their pleadings regarding payment of sale consideration to the plaintiffs. 24. Upon considering the materials produced by both the sides at this stage, there is no case made out by the defendants to interfere with the thoughtful observations made by the Trial Court as well as the pleadings made by the plaintiffs in the plaint. Hence, the Trial Court is correct in allowing I.A.No.IV filed for seeking to grant an order of temporary injunction by the plaintiffs. If, on the guise of sale deeds, the defendants make alienations, then certainly it would cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiffs besides leading to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the Trial Court has passed well- reasoned order as it correctly considered that if application I.A.No.IV is not allowed, then the plaintiffs would put into irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, on all these reasons, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. 25. This Court being the Appellate Court is empowered to interfere with the order only when there is perversity in the order, but upon considering the materials placed by both the sides and the reasons of the Trial Court, this Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.IV. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i), (iii) and (v) in the Affirmative and point Nos.(ii), (iv), (vi) and (vii) in the Negative Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 26. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed 27. The rulings cited by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties are considered while considering the applications on the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court on law of injunction are followed. In view of disposal of the appeals, pending IAs’, if any, shall stand disposed off.