JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. 1. MFA.No.6850/2024 is filed against the order dated 01.10.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1297/2023 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, thereby, the application filed for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs’ is dismissed. MFA.No.7694/2025 is filed by the plaintiffs questioning the order dated 01.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.1297/2023 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, which is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking to restrain the plaintiffs, their agents, representatives from interfering with the written statement schedule property belonging to defendant No.3 is allowed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the above two appeals on these two interlocutory applications. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the suit schedule A, B, C and D properties and also for permanent injunction contending that they are the owners of the properties having acquired the same through the registered sale deed dated 22.06.1967 purchased from one Ajamma W/o Mahimanna. Therefore, the plaintiffs are in possession having title. It is further submitted that the suit schedule properties were not subject matter of acquisition either by KIADB or any other authorities, but the defendants especially defendant No.3 is meddling with the possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit as above stated. 3. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants in brief as made out in the written statement that the suit schedule properties were acquired by KIADB and by virtue of such acquisition proceedings, acquired the suit schedule properties and defendant No.3 has purchased the property from defendant Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, defendant No.3 is in possession of the property and the plaintiffs have lost title over the suit schedule properties by virtue of acquisition made by KIADB and therefore, the plaintiffs do not have any right, title and interest over the property. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit and also filed the counter claim by claiming that the title of defendant No.3 flows from the acquisition proceedings initiated by KIADB and defendant No.3 has acquired the property. The plaintiffs have lost their right, title and interest over the property. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 4. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit and also filed the counter claim by claiming that the title of defendant No.3 flows from the acquisition proceedings initiated by KIADB and defendant No.3 has acquired the property. The plaintiffs have lost their right, title and interest over the property. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 4. The plaintiffs have filed the applications i.e., I.A.Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for an order of temporary injunction against the defendants, but it is dismissed. On the other hand, the defendants have filed the counter claim and also filed I.A.No.4 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the possession of defendant No.3. 5. The trial Court has dismissed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and allowed IA.No.4 on the reason that the defendants have produced the copies of Notifications for having acquired the suit properties by KIADB. Therefore, the title of defendant No.3 is through the said acquisition proceedings and the plaintiffs have lost the title. Therefore, upon these observations, the trial Court has dismissed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and allowed I.A.No.4. 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court on these two applications the above two appeals are filed by raising various grounds and the learned counsel for the appellants in consonance with the grounds taken has argued that the suit properties were not acquired by KIADB. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit properties through the registered sale deed dated 22.06.1967 and defendant No.3 has encroached the suit properties which belongs to the plaintiffs. Therefore, for identification purpose, the trial is pending and when identification is essential, therefore, prays to issue an order of status quo to preserve the nature of property and therefore, submitted to allow the appeals and prays for an order of status quo. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that though the plaintiffs have acquired the property through the registered sale deed dated 22.06.1967, but the schedule properties was acquired by KIADB by issuing Preliminary Notification and also has taken possession and then allotted to defendant No.1 and thereafter, defendant No.3 has purchased the same. Therefore, defendant No.3 is in possession. Hence, this is correctly considered by the trial Court upon the materials placed before it. Therefore, defendant No.3 is in possession. Hence, this is correctly considered by the trial Court upon the materials placed before it. Hence, there is no need to make any interference on the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Upon considering the rival submissions and material produced at this stage, the points that arise for consideration are as under: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs make out prima facie case on the basis of the materials produced before the trial Court so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs make out case of balance of convenience on the basis of the materials produced before the trial Court, so as to grant an order of temporary injunction? (iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, if an order of temporary injunction is not granted, then the plaintiffs would suffer any irreparable loss or injury? 9. Here the suit is filed for declaration and also for permanent injunction. Both the learned counsels have placed the materials before the Court for consideration, which is also produced before the trial Court. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have purchased the property through the registered sale deed dated 22.06.1967. It is submitted that the revenue records of the suit properties are standing in the name of Venkatanarayanappa. The KIADB has issued Notifications for acquiring lands in Sy.Nos.25 and 26, but not acquired the schedule properties. Therefore, the lands in Sy.Nos.25 and 26 which are in Peenya are different from the suit schedule lands, which are situated in Chokkasandra Village, Yeswanthpura Hobli. Therefore, the suit schedule properties were not acquired. Here considering the materials placed on record, which are Gazette Notifications dated 01.09.1969 which is Preliminary Notification acquiring the lands pertaining to Nallakadarenalli, Laggere, Peenya and Chokkasandra. 10. As per this notification Sy.Nos.25 and 26 of Peenya village were acquired and the fact of acquisition of land in Sy.Nos.25 and 26 can be found at Srl.No.212 and 213 of the Gazette Notifications. Also the materials produced before this Court that the lands in Sy.Nos.26/5A, 26/5B and 26/5C, which are found in Sl.Nos.377, 378, 379 were acquired which are situated at Chokksandra Village. 11. Also the materials produced before this Court that the lands in Sy.Nos.26/5A, 26/5B and 26/5C, which are found in Sl.Nos.377, 378, 379 were acquired which are situated at Chokksandra Village. 11. Also produced the Gazette Notification dated 22.08.1970, which is the Final Notification showing that the land in Sy.Nos.26/5A, 26/5B and 26/5C were acquired which can be found at Sl.No.154, 155 and 156 in the said Gazette Notifications. Therefore, prima facie these documents shows that the suit schedule lands were subject matter in acquisition proceedings initiated by the State for the purpose of industrial purpose. 12. Further the sale deed executed by KIADB in favour of defendant No.1 shows that the lands in Sy.Nos.25 and 26 of Chokkasandra Village were acquired and executed the sale deed. The material of possession certificate was issued that the plot No.1(D) is also given to defendant No.1 and this document go to show that on 01.02.1973 possession was handed over by KIADB and taken over by defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 is claiming title through defendant Nos.1 and 2 and KIADB had allotted the land to defendant No.1. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has read on the endorsement issued by KIADB that there is endorsement made by the KIADB that these suit schedule lands were not subject to acquisition, but upon perusal of the endorsement issued by KIADB that what is most could be stated is that there are no records available showing acquisition, but it is mentioned in the said records that by mentioning the number of final notification and with date that these lands were acquired. Also the document of possession certificate produced shows that the plot No.1(D) in Sy.Nos.25 and 26 were given to defendant No.3. 14. Therefore, upon considering all these prima facie materials, it is revealed that these properties were subject matter in the acquisition proceedings. Hence, it is found that defendant No.3 is in possession of the property. 15. Therefore, upon considering the documentary materials available on record at this stage, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court correctly has not granted the order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1, 2 and 3 in negative . Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.