ORDER : M.NAGAPRASANNA, J. The petitioner in W.P.No.20910 of 2023/plaintiff is before this Court calling in question an order dated 28-02-2023 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru insofar as it orders status quo in favour of the respondent in M.A.No.13 of 2022. The petitioner in W.P.No.5972 of 2023/defendant is calling in question order dated 22-04-2022 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.364 of 2021 and the order passed by the Civil Judge which is challenged by the plaintiff referred to supra. 2. Heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - 3.1. In this order parties would be referred as per their rank in the original suit. The plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are said to be comprising of coffee estate, agricultural land and other trees, which according to the averment in the petition are all valuable. There is also a house constructed in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff had raised a loan from R.B.L. Bank concerning the suit schedule properties amongst other properties. Pending clearance of loan, the plaintiff and the defendant enter into a memorandum of understanding on 13-08-2020 and later an agreement of sale on 04-02-2021. It is the averment in the petition that in terms of the agreement, possession of the suit schedule properties was to be delivered to the defendant only in a manner contemplated in a particular clause in the sale agreement. The plaintiff is said to have discharged the debt with the Bank by raising funds from third parties and the Bank is said to have rendered a discharge deed of clearance of loan. 3.2. It is the further averment in the petition that the defendant is said to have collected huge sums of money from third parties to the tune of Rs.3,10,00,000/- and the same has been deposited in the account maintained by the defendant in the Bank. The defendant then files a writ petition in W.P.No.19489 of 2021 seeking a direction for execution of sale deed in his favour against the Bank, contending that the Bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and therefore, the petition had been preferred for execution of the sale deed. The defendant then files a writ petition in W.P.No.19489 of 2021 seeking a direction for execution of sale deed in his favour against the Bank, contending that the Bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and therefore, the petition had been preferred for execution of the sale deed. Persons from whom the defendant had collected money fraudulently and deposited the same in the Bank, register a crime against the defendant in Crime No.24 of 2022 alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating as obtaining in Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC. The bank account of the defendant had been frozen at the instance of the Investigating Officer investigating into Crime No.24 of 2022. 3.3. The defendant files a writ petition in W.P.No.6021 of 2022 calling in question the said crime. In the said proceedings, a settlement is arrived at between the parties thereto wherein the 3 rd parties were assured that their money would be returned and on that score the complaint comes to be quashed. In all these proceedings, the plaintiff/petitioner avers neither the Bank nor the defendant/respondent took possession of the property and the property remained with the possession of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant began to trespass into the suit schedule properties and therefore several proceedings emerge between the parties beginning from O.S.No.364 of 2021 filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the plaintiff files an application I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 again seeking a restraint from the hands of the concerned Court against the defendant. The said application comes to be allowed and an order of temporary injunction is granted. 3.4. The defendant then prefers a miscellaneous appeal in M.A.No.13 of 2022 against the temporary injunction granted in O.S.No.364 of 2021. The first Appellate Court, in terms of its order dated 28-02-2023, partly allowed the appeal and directed the parties to maintain status quo. It is this order that has driven the plaintiff to this Court in Writ Petition No.20910 of 2023. The defendant also files Writ Petition No.5972 of 2023 seeking quashing of both the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. 4. It is this order that has driven the plaintiff to this Court in Writ Petition No.20910 of 2023. The defendant also files Writ Petition No.5972 of 2023 seeking quashing of both the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff Sri Ajesh Kumar S, would vehemently contend that possession of suit schedule properties was never delivered to the defendant and all the loan that was with the R.B.L. Bank has been discharged by the plaintiff itself. The Bank has never initiated any SARFAESI proceedings or issued any notice to the plaintiff. He would therefore, contend that the order of the first Appellate Court directing status quo as against the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court would cause grave prejudice to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is holding all the properties. He would contend that the defendant has no right whatsoever, as the agreement of sale was on a particular condition. Since conditions have not been fulfilled, the agreement of sale never came into existence. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri A.V. Gangadharappa representing the defendant would submit that what the first Appellate Court has granted is only to maintain status quo. The suit is still pending before the concerned Court. Therefore, this Court must not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the first Appellate Court in granting status quo, which would protect the rights of both the parties. The learned counsel would seek to impress upon this Court that the defendant is in possession of the property of it having been delivered pursuant to an agreement of sale. He would otherwise contend that all these matters are a matter of evidence which has to be thrashed out in a full-blown trial. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The averments in the petitions, as noticed hereinabove, would not call for any reiteration. It would suffice if the narration would commence from the date on which a memorandum of understanding is entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The memorandum of understanding is tripartite. The parties are as follows: “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU" ) is made and executed on this the 13th day of August 2020 at Bengaluru. The memorandum of understanding is tripartite. The parties are as follows: “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU" ) is made and executed on this the 13th day of August 2020 at Bengaluru. BETWEEN: M/S BALAJI PLANTATION, a Partnership Firm, having its registered Office at Chickmangalur Represented by its Partners i) Smt Vasantha Hegde, aged about 80 years, w/o Late Shri S.V.Gangaiah Hegde, Hindu inhabitant and resident of_Cheekanahalli Post Chettanahalli village mudigere Taluk, Chikmagalur Dist 577132. ii) Mrs. Malavika Siddartha Hegde aged about 53 years w/o Late Mr VG Siddhartha, Hindu inhabitant and resident of #28, 9 th main 3 rd Cross, Sadashivnagar Bangalore 560080. hereinafter referred to as the " VENDOR " which expression shall, wherever the context so requires or admits, mean and include, their respective heirs, legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors and assigns) of the FIRST PART; AND: Mr K N Ratnakar, Boothan Kadu estate, Handi Post, Chickmangalur District hereinafter referred to as the " BUYER " which expression shall, wherever the context so requires or admits, mean and include, their respective heirs, legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors and assigns) of the SECOND PART AND M/s. RBL Bank Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and deemed to exist within the purview of the Companies Act, 1956 and deemed to exist within the purview of the Companies Act, 2013 and having its registered office at 'Shahupuri', Kolhapur - 416 001 interalia having its branch office at No. 99/100, third Floor, Prestige Tower, Residency Road, BENGALURU-560 025. Represented by its Officer Mr Chetan Pichamuthu hereinafter referred to as the " BANK " (which term wherever the context so admits be, deemed to include its successors-in-office and assigns) of the THIRD PART .” The schedule properties were many and they are as follows: “SCHEDULE PROPERTIES i) All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 264 (167/P2) measuring 08 Acres 00 Guntas, situated at Machagondanahalli Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikmagalur District, Karnataka; and bounded on; East by West by North by South by ii) All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 284 (167/P10) measuring 01 Acres 00 Guntas, situated at Machagondanahalli Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikmagalur District, Karnataka; and bounded on; East by West by North by South by iii) All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 284 (167/P10) measuring 01 Acres 00 Guntas, situated at Machagondanahalli Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikmagalur District, Karnataka; and bounded on; East by West by North by South by iii) All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 308 (167/P6) measuring 08 Acres 00 Guntas, situated at Machagondanahalli Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikmagalur District, Karnataka; and bounded on; East by West by North by South by iv) All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 264 (264/P2) measuring 07 Acres 00 Guntas, situated at Machagondanahalli Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikmagalur District, Karnataka; and bounded on; East by West by North by South by v) All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 286 measuring 05 Acres 00 Guntas, situated at Machagondanahalli Villge, Aldur hobli, Chikmagalur District; and bounded on; East by West by North by South by vi) All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 308 (167/P8) measuring 07 Acres 00 Guntas, situated at Machagondanahalli Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikmagalur District, Karnataka; and bounded on; East by West by North by South by vii) All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 347 (167/P2) measuring 04 Acres 00 Guntas, situated at Machagondanahalli Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikmagalur District, Karnataka; and bounded on; East by West by North by South by” Clauses 12 and 13 of the MOU, which are also germane to be noticed read as follows: “12. The terms and conditions referred to in clause 1 to 11 of this MOU are in addition to and not in derogation of the rights of the Bank covered under the Loan Agreement/s and other Financial document/s w.r.t to the Loan Facility. The Bank at all the times as a security Holder of the Schedule Properties shall have the right to enforce its rights over the Schedule Properties and take possession of the Schedule Properties by following due process of law. 13. The Bank at all the times as a security Holder of the Schedule Properties shall have the right to enforce its rights over the Schedule Properties and take possession of the Schedule Properties by following due process of law. 13. It is covenanted between the Parties that if in any event during the subsistence of this MOU, the Bank elects to enforce its rights against the Schedule Properties by following due process of law; this MOU shall terminate automatically and the Buyer will have the option to participate in the auction proceeding/s to purchase the Schedule Properties by following due process of law; Provided further upon termination of this MOU, the Buyer shall be entitled at its option to either withdraw the amounts deposited in the escrow account or alternatively to continue the deposits with the Bank till its due date of maturity without any encumbrances. In both scenarios the Buyer shall be entitled to withdraw the money deposited with the Bank under the escrow account along with the interest accrued thereon.” The money was agreed to be deposited in escrow account. What follows the memorandum of understanding is an agreement of sale dated 04-02-2021. Clause-7 thereof which deals with possession reads as follows: “7. POSSESSION, TITLE DOCUMENTS 7.1 The Vendor shall handover physical vacant possession of the Schedule Property to the Purchaser simultaneous with execution of the Sale Deed. 7.2 The Vendor further agrees and undertakes to deliver to the Purchaser, the original documents of title pertaining to the Schedule Property at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed.” The afore-quoted clause in the agreement of sale was clear that the vendor, the petitioner/plaintiff shall hand over physical vacant possession of the suit schedule properties to the purchaser/defendant, simultaneously with execution of sale deed. 8. It is an admitted fact that even as on today the sale deed is not executed. Therefore, prima facie, possession was never delivered in terms of the agreement of sale in favour of the defendant. Owing to disturbance from the hands of the defendant, the plaintiff institutes suit in O.S.No.364 of 2021 and files an application along with it under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the defendant. The concerned Court frames the following issues for consideration: “1. Whether the applicant has made out prima facie case? 2. Owing to disturbance from the hands of the defendant, the plaintiff institutes suit in O.S.No.364 of 2021 and files an application along with it under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the defendant. The concerned Court frames the following issues for consideration: “1. Whether the applicant has made out prima facie case? 2. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant? 3. Whether the applicant will be put to irreparable loss or injury if this application is not allowed? 4. What order?” Answering those issues, the concerned Court had rendered cogent reasons detailed enough and grants temporary injunction. The reasons rendered are as follows: “…. …. …. 11. POINT NO.1 : Any of the observations made herein does not affect the merits of the case and parties are at liberty to prove their respective contentions. These observations have been made only for the purpose of disposal of this application. The whole facts of the case are already narrated above. Hence, it is avoided here. It is relevant to note that the parties of suit i.e., plaintiff is applicant here and defendant is opponent here. 12. It is the case of the plaintiff's that they are in possession of the schedule property and the defendant is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the schedule properties. In order to prove the same the plaintiff has produced G.P.A. in favour of the G.P.A. holder and has produced photo copy of Memorandum of Understanding, which is also produced by defendant dated 13.08.2020, executed between the M/s. Balaji Plantations, the defendant and R.B.L. Bank Ltd., On perusal of this document it is clear that the plaintiff obtained loan from the bank to the tune of Rs.48,27,00,000/- and in respect of the same had created a charge in favour of the bank in respect of the schedule properties. Further, the defendant is referred as buyer in this M.O.E., wherein the defendant has agreed to purchase the schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,60,00,000/- and the said amount was agreed between the parties to be deposited in the escrow account maintained by the bank. This document is admitted by both the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the schedule properties. 13. This document is admitted by both the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the schedule properties. 13. The plaintiff has also produced agreement of sale in respect of the schedule properties executed by the M/s. Balaji Plantations in favour of the defendant, which is also produced by defendant. In this document it is agreed by the defendant for the purchase of the schedule properties for a sale consideration of Rs.5,60,00,000/- and out of the same Rs.1,00,00,000/ was received as advance amount by way of cheque in favour of the R.B.L. Bank. It is further agreed that the remaining sale consideration of Rs.4,60,00,000/- shall be paid in favour of the R.B.L. Bank Ltd., or vendor. at the time of the registration of the sale deed. It is further observed in this document in point No.7 it is stated that the vendor shall hand over physical vacant possession of the schedule property to the purchaser simultaneously with execution of the sale deed. The vendor further agreed and under took to deliver to the purchaser, the original documents of title pertaining to the schedule property at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. This document is also admitted by the defendant, which means no possession was handed over to the defendant at the time of agreement of sale. 14. Further, the plaintiff in order to prove its possession has produced R.T.C. extracts in respect of the schedule properties, which are standing in possession and enjoyment of M/s. Balaji Plantation. Further letter is produced, which is issued by the R.B.L. Bank to the defendant calling upon the defendant to perform his part of contract by paying balance sale consideration. Further, the plaintiff has produced photo copy of a complaint dated 02.09.2021 given by the plaintiff against the defendant, wherein it is stated that the defendant is "TRYING TO TRESPASS" the schedule property and also obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Further police notice issued to complainant dated 02.09.2021, wherein the endorsement is given stating that the defendant has "TRESPASSED" the schedule property. At the outset it is noticed that the complaint is given to the police stating that the defendant is trying to trespass the schedule property, but the police endorsement state that the defendant has trespassed the schedule properties. It is clearly seen that the police have committed a mistake while giving this endorsement. At the outset it is noticed that the complaint is given to the police stating that the defendant is trying to trespass the schedule property, but the police endorsement state that the defendant has trespassed the schedule properties. It is clearly seen that the police have committed a mistake while giving this endorsement. A similar endorsement is also produced by the defendant dated 02.09.2021, which is given to the defendant, wherein the same mistake has been committed. 15. Further, the plaintiff has produced photo copy of the Writ Petition in 19489/2021, wherein the learned counsel for plaintiff has highlighted the 7 th para, wherein it is mentioned that the R.B.L. Bank Ltd., has released the property mortgaged before filing of the Writ Petition. Further have also produced F.I.R. and enclousers in Cr. No.24/2022 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., and also the certified copies of order sheet, I.A., plaint and written statement in O.S. No.6/2022 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., which is filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and R.B.L. Bank Ltd., Further, has produced the photo copy of receipt dated 10.11.2021, wherein the defendant has deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the R.B.L. Bank Ltd., 16. On perusal of the Memorandum of Understanding, sale agreement and the R.T.C. extract, it appears that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. No where in the said transaction possession is delivered to the defendant. Further, the plaintiff has given the complaint to the police stating that the defendant is trying to trespass the schedule property. Such being the case the plaintiff has proved prima facie case in his favour. 17. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant that the possession was delivered by the R.B.L. Bank in respect of the schedule properties and he was always ready to pay the balance amount and also submits that he has invested crores in developing the schedule properties. In order to prove his possession the defendant has produced photo copy of the resident certificate, wherein the residence of the daughter and wife of the defendant and the defendant is shown as Boothanakadu, Machagondanahalli Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikkamagaluru. This document does not depict that the defendant is in possession of the survey number in Machagondanahalli Village i.e., schedule properties. In order to prove his possession the defendant has produced photo copy of the resident certificate, wherein the residence of the daughter and wife of the defendant and the defendant is shown as Boothanakadu, Machagondanahalli Village, Aldur Hobli, Chikkamagaluru. This document does not depict that the defendant is in possession of the survey number in Machagondanahalli Village i.e., schedule properties. Further, the defendant has produced sale agreement, which is also produced by the plaintiff, wherein it is clearly shown as discussed above that the possession of the schedule property will be handed over with or at the time of execution of the sale deed. The producing of this document clearly shows that the defendant impliedly agreed that the possession was not handed over to the defendant by way of the sale agreement. Further, police notice was also produced by defendant dated 02.09.2021, as discussed above, wherein the police has committed mistake stating that the defendant has already trespassed the schedule property. Whereas the complaint was given stating that the defendant is trying to trespass the schedule property. However, another contention taken by the defendant that in the said police notice the address of the defendant is mentioned as residing at Kanchina Koppa Halli, Balaji Plantation, Boothanakadu. It is the argument of the learned counsel for defendant, that this address shows that the defendant is in possession of the schedule properties. However, it is relevant to observe here that in the said address neither the survey numbers are mentioned nor the village name of the schedule properties is mentioned. Only wording of Balaji Plantations cannot be taken as an absolute proof to decide possession of the defendant over the schedule properties. The plaintiff itself is the Balaji Plantation, which means the defendant is claiming under the possession of the plaintiff. However, no survey numbers nor the identification of the schedule properties clearly mentioned in this police notice. Therefore, this document cannot be considered to decide the possession of the defendant over the schedule properties. 18. Further, the defendant has produced another sale deed and sale agreement in respect some other properties, which this Court does not deem it proper to discuss here. Further, it is contention of the defendant that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has granted T.I. in favour of the defendant protecting the possession of the defendant. 18. Further, the defendant has produced another sale deed and sale agreement in respect some other properties, which this Court does not deem it proper to discuss here. Further, it is contention of the defendant that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has granted T.I. in favour of the defendant protecting the possession of the defendant. On perusal of the said order only the interim relief has given for one month, so that the defendant can approach the proper forum. Further, no other documents are produced which binds this Court from taking a contrary view. Mere granting interim relief for one month cannot be taken as a proof of possession of defendant over the schedule property while deciding the main application. The said writ petition was dispossessed off as not maintainable. The said order in the Writ petition cannot be considered as the Hon'ble Court had no jurisdiction and it has disposed the said Writ Petition as not maintainable. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for defendant can not be considered in this line. 19. Further, document is purchased by the defendant which is letter given by the R.B.L. Bank Ltd., in favour of the defendant residing at R.K. Plantation, Boothanakadu, wherein the bank called upon the defendant to hand over the peaceful possession of the estate. It is the argument of the learned counsel for defendant that this document shows the possession of the schedule properties by the defendant. The learned counsel for plaintiff has strongly objected this document and submitted that the bank had no authority to issue this letter. MOU, sale agreement and 'E' khatha extracts prevail over this document. Hence it cannot be considered at this stage. It has to be decided during trial, whether the bank had authority on 12.10.2021 to issue this letter or not. This document has to be subjected to trial. But, however at this stage admittedly plaintiff is the owner of the schedule properties and even the katha extract standing in the name of plaintiff in respect of the schedule properties. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, it is correct to conclude that, the plaintiff has established prima facie case and accordingly, this point is answered in affirmative. 20. Point No.2 and 3: These points involve common discussion. Hence, they are taken up together. As stated herein before, the plaintiff has established the prima facie case in his favour. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, it is correct to conclude that, the plaintiff has established prima facie case and accordingly, this point is answered in affirmative. 20. Point No.2 and 3: These points involve common discussion. Hence, they are taken up together. As stated herein before, the plaintiff has established the prima facie case in his favour. However, it is the contention of the defendant that he has invested crores in developing the property. No documents are produced to show the development work was carried out in the schedule properties, except the photographs, which cannot be considered at this stage without being a annexed certificate under Sec.65(B) of the Evidence Act. 21. Further, the learned counsel for defendant has relied on decision reported in 1997 0 Supreme(Kar) 460 in the case of N.S. Satyanarayana Vs. Thimmappa, wherein the decree of the Appellate Court is set aside, which has confirmed the possession of the plaintiff in the property, but yet has refused to grant injunction. Further, the learned counsel for defendant has relied on another decision reported in 1997 0 ILR (Kar) 206 in the case A.D. Narayanappa Vs. Muniyappa, wherein it is held that "the very person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed even by the owner, otherwise, than by proceeding in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is further held that injunction is discretionary, which can be refused against the plaintiff when he comes to the Court with unclean hands. 22. The above noted decisions are not applicable to the facts on hand. This Court has never concluded that the defendant is in possession of the schedule properties. Hence, these decisions are not applicable to the facts on hand. Further, the defendant has not produced any document to show how and on what basis he acquired the possession of the schedule property. Further, there are no sufficient materials on record to show the possession of the defendant over the schedule properties. In the absence of contrary documents the R.T.C. extracts and sale agreement has to be believed to show the possession of the property. Such being the case it is the correct to conclude that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property after clearance of loan from bank. The defendant has objected the possession of the plaintiff, which shows clearly interference by the defendant. 23. Such being the case it is the correct to conclude that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property after clearance of loan from bank. The defendant has objected the possession of the plaintiff, which shows clearly interference by the defendant. 23. Further, the plaintiff has relied on decision reported in 2018 (3) KCCR 2374 in the case of Smt. Renuka Seshadri Vs. Mrs. Shobha Prabhakar. Wherein, it is held that "any attempt to take possession of the property by force is impermissible in law". However, the facts of the decision and case on hand are totally different. Hence, it is not applicable to this case. Hence, as per to the above discussion it is clear that the plaintiff has established prima facie case and it is also the contention and arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiff that the defendant is trying to sell the schedule property to another person. However, this argument is subject to trial. Under the circumstance of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff, if this I.A. is not allowed. Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 and 3 in affirmative. 24. Point No.4 : For the above said reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The I.A No.I filed by the applicant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed. The defendant, his men, agent or anybody under him are hereby restrained from trespassing into the suit schedule properties in any manner till disposal of the suit.” (Emphasis added) This is challenged by the defendant before the first appellate Court in M.A.No.13 of 2022. The first Appellate Court, by the impugned order, directs maintenance of status quo. The first appellate Court without any rhyme or reason gets into the veracity of documents produced instead of going by the balance of convenience. By going into merits of the matter, the first Appellate Court declares that the defendant is in possession of the property whether it is physical or unauthorized. The order of the first Appellate Court, insofar as it is germane, reads as follows: “…. …. …. 24. By going into merits of the matter, the first Appellate Court declares that the defendant is in possession of the property whether it is physical or unauthorized. The order of the first Appellate Court, insofar as it is germane, reads as follows: “…. …. …. 24. As could be seen from the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the defendant herein has not pressed any interim injunction from the proper Forum and in this regard, the defendant has not whispered anything before this court. If the injunction as prayed in the present proposition is not granted, then by misusing the said scope of circumstances, it is ever chances to proceed further by the defendant towards the timber contract and cause loss to the basic and true owners. The plaintiff having alternative remedy in this context, but the act of the defendant goes against the interest of plaintiff, then it will cause injustice to the plaintiff rather than the defendant and it will cause multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, it forced to this court to confirm the interim order granted by the Trial Court to the extent of the standing crop and timber. However, as already discussed the defendant has been control over the structure, which appears through the photos as reflected from the documents. Then, without considering his possession on the said factors, if plain injunction in respect of the suit properties in whole is granted, it will be caused injustice to the defendant. If the appropriate order is not operated, then, it is ever chances to quit the defendant by the plaintiff from the structures and misuse or cause loss to the installed machine, by taking the law into their hand as against the law and legal principle. Even in the absence of expressed terms of contract, the defendant has occupied and having control over the structure as appeared from the photos. The control or possession may be unauthorized, but the plaintiff has been obligated to get redress the said element in accordance with law. Despite of that the defendant has been control over the structure as appear through the photos on record, the plaintiff has not initiated any effective and efficacious remedy through the present proposition or through any other Parrnell or simultaneous proceeding. Despite of that the defendant has been control over the structure as appear through the photos on record, the plaintiff has not initiated any effective and efficacious remedy through the present proposition or through any other Parrnell or simultaneous proceeding. It shows that, if the present status of interim injunction as granted by the Trial court is continued, then, it will be caused injustice to the defendant in part. But the trial court has not all recognized and taken into account the photo scene and order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that effect while give its finding and decision towards the impugned order. As such, it is necessary to confirm the interim injunction granted by the Trial Court in respect of areas other than the area where the structure built up as appeared from the photos. But the plaintiff or defendant have not made clear where exactly the structure existed or in which survey number those structure available. In further, the parties have not made clear the access to the structure. However, by considering the photo picture and address mentioned in the corresponding residential proof, it is necessary to restrict or made confine the interim injunction in respect of area where the crop has been growing. The plaintiff has not substantially denied the possession of defendant in respect of the super structured area and installation of machineries in the said area. It is required to evaluate and test the veracity of the materials pertinent to the possession over the super structured area through the full-dressed trial. For the present context, it is benefit to rely upon a decision reported in ILR 1985 Kar 3700 (Patil Exhibitors Vs Bengaluru Municipal Corporation) , Where in was held that: “The protection that the court affords is not of the possession which in the circumstances is litigious possession and cannot be equated with lawful dispossession but a protection against forcible possession. The basis of relief is a corollary of the principle that even with the best title, there cannot be forcible dispossession. Under our jurisprudence, even all unauthorized occupants can be evicted only in the manner authorized by law. This is the essence of the Rule of Law”. 25. It is also law down in a decision reported in ILR 2006 (1) KAR 1047 (SC) (Rame Gowda dead by Lrs. Under our jurisprudence, even all unauthorized occupants can be evicted only in the manner authorized by law. This is the essence of the Rule of Law”. 25. It is also law down in a decision reported in ILR 2006 (1) KAR 1047 (SC) (Rame Gowda dead by Lrs. -VS- M. Varadappa Naidu dead by Lrs and another) , wherein it was held that “It is thus clear that so far as the Indian Law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if be can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injecting even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray of causal in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse of law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner” Therefore, it is necessary to issue direction to both side parties to maintain status-quo in respect of super structured area as forth come from the photos on record till pending disposal of suit. As such, it is forced to pass necessary and suitable order in this regard. As such, it is forced to pass necessary and suitable order in this regard. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I answered Point No.1 partly in the Affirmative. 26. POINT NO.2 : In view of the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellants under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC is hereby allowed in part. The interim order passed by the 2 nd Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Chikkamagaluru in O.S.No. 364/2021 dated 22.04.2022 is confirmed other than house/structure as reflected from photos available on record. The parties are hereby directed to maintain status quo till pending disposal of the above suit in respect of house/structure as appeared through the photos available on record. Office is hereby directed to send back the Trial Court record with copy of this order.” (Emphasis added) The first Appellate Court confirms interim injunction insofar as house/structure, as reflected from the photographs available and directs the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit in respect of house/structure. Therefore, the concerned Court does not go by the documents, but goes by the photographs. It proceeds on an imaginary assumption that the plaintiff has not pleaded or pressed issue of possession that runs counter to the very plaint and the observations of the trial Court while granting an injunction. The documents would speak otherwise. To grant an interim order of status quo, the defendant, prima facie, ought to have proved that possession of the suit schedule properties had been delivered to him. The document upon which the defendant claims complete right, is the agreement of sale. The agreement of sale itself indicates that possession would be delivered only after a sale deed is executed. It is an admitted fact that even as on today, there is no sale deed executed. 9. One analogous development takes place. The property was mortgaged with the Bank. The defendant files a suit arraigning the Bank and the plaintiff as party defendants to the said suit. In the said suit an application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 by the defendant. However, the concerned Court declines to grant interim injunction in favour of the defendant. The property was mortgaged with the Bank. The defendant files a suit arraigning the Bank and the plaintiff as party defendants to the said suit. In the said suit an application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 by the defendant. However, the concerned Court declines to grant interim injunction in favour of the defendant. The order of the concerned Court in O.S.No.6 of 2022 is as follows: “The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of contract and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Further the plaintiff has filed the I.A. No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w 151 CPC prays to grant for an accused-interim ex- parte temporary injunction restraining defendant No.1, its agents or anybody claiming though it from alienating the suit schedule properties in favour of any persons in any manner till disposal of the suit. Further, the plaintiff has filed the I.A.No.2 U/o 39 R 1 and 2 r/w 151 CPC prays to grant for an ad interim ex-parte temporary injunction as against the defendant No.1, its agents or anybody claiming through it from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties till disposal of the suit. In support of both the application, the separate affidavits of plaintiff is filed. Now the defendant No.1 has appeared before the Court through its counsel. Counsel for the defendant No.1 prays time to file the objection to I.A.No.1 and 2. Perused the contents of the plaint and suit documents. On perusal of the contents of the affidavits filed by the plaintiff in support of the I.A.No.1 and 2 and also relief sought for in the I.As and looking to the suit documents it shows that the suit schedule properties are the landed properties. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that before granting the relief as sought for in I.A.No.1 and 2, it is necessary to given an opportunity to the other side to file the objection to I.As and also it is necessary to hearing the other side. Hence, case is posted for objection to I.A.No.1 and 2 and WS of defendant No.1. Call on 02-02-2022. Office is directed to comply the order dated 13-01-2022 as against defendant No.2. Hence, case is posted for objection to I.A.No.1 and 2 and WS of defendant No.1. Call on 02-02-2022. Office is directed to comply the order dated 13-01-2022 as against defendant No.2. Call on 02.02.2022.” (Emphasis added) It is again an admitted fact that there is no injunction granted in the said suit. The suit so filed by the defendant was seeking specific performance and consequently the relief of permanent injunction. Temporary injunction was sought under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which is not granted owing to the fact that the plaintiff therein/respondent herein in W.P.No.20910 of 2023 was never in possession of the property. The suit is pending adjudication. In the interregnum, the defendant, on the strength of a particular communication, approaches this Court in Writ Petition No.19489 of 2021. The communication is said to be from R.B.L. Bank. The communication reads as follows: “12 th October, 2021 K.N.Rathnakar R.K. Plantation Boothankadu, Handi Post, Chikmagalur Post- 577 144. Dear Mr. Rathnakar, As per terms of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated August 13, 2020 executed between owners of Balaji Plantation, RBL Bank (Bank) and yourselves, please note that balance consideration for enterprises had to be paid within 30 days of vacation of interim order by Honorable DRT at Bangalore (interim order). Please note that interim order has been vacated in Dec 2020 and despite repeated reminders from Bank, you have not paid the balance consideration for purchasing the estate. Due to inordinate delay in remitting the balance proceeds to the bank, a notice was served to you on March 9 th , 2021 to settle the balance dues within 10 days. As the Bank has not received any communication and agreement got expired on the MoU executed was cancelled. In the meantime, again you have approached the bank over a phone call on 7 th September stating that you have remitted additional INR 1 crore over and above initial advance of Rs.1 crore and taken a confirmation for the same from the bank with an assurance to pay the remaining within a week. Due to the inordinate delay, we have reached out to over a call you had personally visited on our Residency Road, Bangalore region office 6 th October 2021 along with your son and promised to pay the entire balance of Rs.3.6 crores on 11 th October 2021 which was not honoured. Due to the inordinate delay, we have reached out to over a call you had personally visited on our Residency Road, Bangalore region office 6 th October 2021 along with your son and promised to pay the entire balance of Rs.3.6 crores on 11 th October 2021 which was not honoured. As we have not heard anything from you thereafter and understand you continue to occupy the estate and enjoy the harvest and other benefits without having any legal title. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we called upon to hand over the peaceful possession of the estate as is where basis without causing any damage. In case of failure to do so, the bank is constrained to take legal action against you illegally occupying the estate without paying the balance amount as per committed schedule. This leads to loss to the bank on account of delay in recovery and additional cost for other legal charges incurred. We hereby confirm that all these charges will be recovered from the advances remitted with our bank.” In the writ petition, a coordinate Bench of this Court grants the following order: “Office Objections is complied with in the Court with its leave. Issue emergent notice. Stay of dispossession subject to petitioner depositing Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty Lakh) only with the first respondent-Bank within two weeks, failing which, not only the interim order stands rescinded but the writ petition also may be rejected with forfeiture of some amount & no equities to accrue.” The Bank files its objections in the said writ petition and also an application seeking vacation of interim order. In the affidavit, the averment of the Bank is as follows: “8. It is submitted that it is also being stated as a matter of record that this respondent had not commenced any proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the petitioner.” The Bank files an affidavit before this Court that it has never initiated any SARFAESI proceedings against the defendant. The entire argument of the learned counsel for the defendant is relying upon the document said to have been communicated by the Bank to the defendant that it has initiated SARFAESI proceedings for the loan not having been cleared. Thus, the learned counsel for the defendant seeks to project that the defendant is in possession of the property. The entire argument of the learned counsel for the defendant is relying upon the document said to have been communicated by the Bank to the defendant that it has initiated SARFAESI proceedings for the loan not having been cleared. Thus, the learned counsel for the defendant seeks to project that the defendant is in possession of the property. The Bank itself, in its affidavit before this Court, as observed hereinabove, holds that it has not initiated any proceedings. Therefore, where from the document spring is a mystery which will have to be thrashed out in the trial. 10. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance, there is no warrant for the first Appellate Court to have interfered with the well-reasoned order of the trial Court, that too on the strength of photographs produced before it. It is documents vs. photographs. If the documents would clearly speak that no possession was delivered, the first Appellate Court could not have observed that possession whether unauthorized or authorized had been delivered, solely on the strength of a communication from R.B.L. Bank which the R.B.L. Bank itself states that no communication was ever made to the defendant. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that possession of properties was subject to the condition of execution of sale deed. The sale deed is yet to be executed, is an admitted fact. Therefore, where from possession would spring in favour of the defendant is ununderstandable. In that light, the order of the first Appellate Court warrants appropriate interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. It is trite law that the first Appellate Court should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court or the Court of first instance, unless grave or exceptional circumstances exist. The Apex Court in the case of WANDER LIMITED v. ANTOX INDIA P. LTD. , 1990 Supp SCC 727 , holds as follows: “…. …. …. 14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. The Apex Court in the case of WANDER LIMITED v. ANTOX INDIA P. LTD. , 1990 Supp SCC 727 , holds as follows: “…. …. …. 14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [ (1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156 ]: (SCR 721) “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton& Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.” The Apex Court holds that if discretion has been exercised by the trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner, the fact that the appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial Court’s exercise of discretion. The first appellate Court, in the case at hand, has undoubtedly interfered with the well-reasoned exercise of discretion by the trial Court based upon the documents produced before it, which is interfered with on the strength of photographs. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition No.20910 of 2023 is allowed and Writ Petition No.5972 of 2023 is rejected. (ii) The order of the first Appellate Court in M.A.No.13 of 2022 stands quashed and the order of the Trial Court in O.S.No.364 of 2021, granting temporary injunction during subsistence of the suit stands restored. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.