JUDGMENT : C.M. POONACHA, J. The above appeals are filed by the plaintiffs calling in question the orders dated 02.06.2025 passed on IA Nos.1 and 2 in OS No.1425/2024 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’] , whereunder the Trial Court rejected the said applications. 2. Since the orders impugned in both the appeals are the same, they are taken up together for consideration. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit in OS.No.1425/2024 seeking to cancel the registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 executed by them in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and also for a declaration seeking to declare various Sale Deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of subsequent purchasers, consequent to the registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 as not binding on the plaintiffs and for other reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of the suit property. That under a bonafide belief and impression that they were entering into a sale agreement they executed the registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4, to which document defendant No.5 was a confirming party. Defendants Nos.6 to 27 are the subsequent purchasers from defendant Nos.1 to 4. The suit was contested by defendant Nos.1 to 4 as well as the subsequent purchasers, namely defendant Nos.6 to 27. 4. In the suit, the plaintiffs filed IA.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] to restrain the defendants from alienating or creating any encumbrance over the suit property. The plaintiffs also filed IA No.1 to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs. The said applications were opposed by defendants Nos.1 to 4 as well as by defendants Nos.6 to 27. The Trial Court by orders dated 02.06.2025 dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of IA No.1, MFA No.4187/2025 is filed and being aggrieved by the dismissal of IA No.2, MFA No.4185/2025 is filed. 5. The said applications were opposed by defendants Nos.1 to 4 as well as by defendants Nos.6 to 27. The Trial Court by orders dated 02.06.2025 dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of IA No.1, MFA No.4187/2025 is filed and being aggrieved by the dismissal of IA No.2, MFA No.4185/2025 is filed. 5. Learned Senior counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar along with learned counsel Sri Rakesh Bhatt appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs vehemently contend that the plaintiffs being the absolute owners of the suit property, they have averred in detail in the plaint as to the manner and circumstances under which the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 was executed. That although the document dated 19.08.2017 has been registered as a Deed of Sale, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs they were given to understand that the document that was being registered is an Agreement of Sale. That the payments enumerated in the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017, as sale consideration has not been paid to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as the plaintiffs have received only a sum of about Rs.1.10 crore, although the total sale consideration is mentioned as Rs. 14.00 crores. That the other payments totalling to a sum of Rs.12.75 crores have been paid to defendant No.5. That the suit property is an agricultural land and defendant Nos.6 to 27 having acquired portions of the same from Defendant Nos.1 to 4 under various Sale Deeds, the transactions vis-à-vis the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 itself having been questioned, and suitable reliefs having been sought in respect of the other Sale Deeds, it is just and proper that pending adjudication of the rights of the parties in the suit, the defendants be restrained by interim orders as sought for in IA.Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court. That the Trial Court has erroneously rejected the applications filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the above appeals and granting of the reliefs sought for. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Keshav M.Datar appearing for defendant Nos.1 to 4 would refer to various facts and material on record to contend that the plaintiffs had earlier entered into an agreement dated 21.04.2017 with defendant No.5 and the other payments made in the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017, other than the payments made to the vendors was to the agreement holder of the plaintiffs i.e., defendant No.5. It is further contended that the suit property has been converted for non-agricultural purposes and the said aspect of conversion is a matter of record, which has also come on record in various other proceedings that were initiated by the alleged original landowners before the Assistant Commissioner as well as in other suits that were pending between the parties. That the plaintiffs being educated persons, having executed documents being aware of the nature of the said documents, having received considerations under the said documents and the plaintiffs not having initiated any action from 2017 to 2024, with an oblique motive have filed the present suit. 7. Learned Senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla along with learned counsel Sri S.V.Giridhar appearing for defendant Nos.6 to 27 would contend that they are bonafide purchasers from defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the plaintiffs having entered into a registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 with defendant Nos.1 to 4, in the event have not received the sale consideration from defendants Nos.1 to 4, the remedy available under law to the plaintiffs is to sue for recovery of the sale consideration. 8. Both the learned counsels appearing for the defendants/respondents would contend that the plaintiffs have suppressed material facts, more particularly with regard to the conversion of the land, as also the other proceedings that were initiated by the alleged original landowners in proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1978’] 9. It is further contended by the subsequent purchasers that apart from the sale consideration paid by them under the various Sale Deeds, under which they have purchased portions of the suit property, they have also paid huge amounts of money to settle the litigation initiated with the alleged original owners, in respect of which, a compromise has been entered into between the parties in Civil Revision Petition No.336/2023. That the plaintiffs have belatedly filed the suit with an oblique motive to hold the defendants to ransom. That the plaintiffs are residing in their property, which is abutting the suit property and they were fully aware of the construction that was being put up by the subsequent purchasers, they have continued to receive various amounts from defendant No.5 up to the year 2024. 10. That the plaintiffs are residing in their property, which is abutting the suit property and they were fully aware of the construction that was being put up by the subsequent purchasers, they have continued to receive various amounts from defendant No.5 up to the year 2024. 10. It is contended that the Trial Court having adequately appreciated the relevant factual matrix as also the conduct of the plaintiffs, has rightly passed the impugned HC-KAR orders rejecting the interim applications filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, it is contended that the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to any equitable relief from this Court. 11. The learned counsels for both the parties have made elaborate submissions referring to various material on record as also relied on various judgments, references to which will be made to the extent that the same are necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeals. 12. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting IA Nos.1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs? 13. The relevant fact situation is undisputed, inasmuch as the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property having inherited the same from their parents. It is further forthcoming from the record that the plaintiffs entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 21.04.2017 with defendant No.5, whereunder they agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.10.00 crores. Under the said agreement, a total sum of Rs.1.30 crores was stated to have been paid by defendant No.5 to the HC-KAR plaintiffs and a balance sum of `8.66 crores was to be paid as on date of the Sale Deed. The plaintiffs had denied receipt of a sum of Rs.1.30 crores mentioned in the Agreement of Sale dated 21.04.2017 and they acknowledge receipt of only a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs. 14. It is further a matter of record that the plaintiffs have entered into a registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017, whereunder they have conveyed the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Defendant No. 5 has also signed the said Sale Deed as a confirming party. 50.00 lakhs. 14. It is further a matter of record that the plaintiffs have entered into a registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017, whereunder they have conveyed the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Defendant No. 5 has also signed the said Sale Deed as a confirming party. Vide the said Sale Deed, the plaintiffs have sold the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.14.00 crores, out of which the plaintiffs acknowledge receipt of about a sum of Rs. 1.10 crores and the balance sum of Rs. 12.75 crores is stated to have been paid by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the confirming party, defendant No.5. The remaining amounts have been shown as remittance is made by defendant Nos.1 to 4 towards Tax Deducted at Source , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘TDS’] with regard to the sale consideration. 15. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they were given to understand that the document that was to be executed and registered on 19.08.2017 was an Agreement of Sale and only subsequently have realized that it was a Deed of Sale. Detail averments have been made in the plaint as to the circumstances under which the plaintiffs contend that they were under an understanding and belief that they were executing an Agreement of Sale. 16. Subsequent to the execution of the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have executed various Sale Deeds of the years 2023 and 2024 of the sites that have been carved out in the suit property, which alienations have been made in favour defendant Nos.6 to 27. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed on record copies of the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1978, pending before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub Division, Bangalore, which were initiated by one Venkatesh as well as one Thayama and others in petition No.110/2015-16 as well as petition No.52/2016-17 respectively. The copies of the statement of objections filed by the plaintiffs who were arrayed as respondents in the said proceedings have also been placed on record. Learned counsel for the respondents have also placed on record copies of the plaint in OS.No.590/2020, filed by Smt.Thayama and others for partition, whereunder The plaintiffs herein were arrayed as defendants Nos.14 to 16 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein were arrayed as 17 to 20 in the said suit. Learned counsel for the respondents have also placed on record copies of the plaint in OS.No.590/2020, filed by Smt.Thayama and others for partition, whereunder The plaintiffs herein were arrayed as defendants Nos.14 to 16 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein were arrayed as 17 to 20 in the said suit. A copy of the compromise petition filed in CRP No.336/2023, which was filed by defendant Nos.17 to 20 challenging the rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, has also been placed on record. 18. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the plaintiffs who were arrayed as party respondents in the proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner have specifically referred to the conversion order dated 3.6.1983, whereas in the plaint it is the specific assertion of the plaintiffs that the land is not converted. It is the further specific assertion of the learned counsel for the respondents that the plaintiffs who were arrayed as party defendant Nos.14 to 16 in the suit in OS No.590/2020, did not contest the suit and hence the defendants were required to incur further expenses to settle the said litigation. 19. With regard to the order of conversion, it is the specific contention of the appellants/plaintiffs that they are not HC-KAR aware of any order of conversion and that the conversion order that is referred to in the statement of objections filed before the Assistant Commissioner, which have been placed on record, are not to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It is further contended that the plaintiffs who are arrayed as defendant Nos.14 to 16 in OS No.590/2020 were not served with the suit summons and attention was sought to be drawn to a portion of the order sheet in OS No.590/2020 to indicate certain overwritings with regard to defendant No.16. 20. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they were not aware of the nature of documents that were executed on 19.08.2017. However, a bare perusal of the consideration that is stated in the said document would indicate that majority of the payments have been made by defendant Nos.1 to 4 to defendant No.5. The plaintiffs have further placed on record that they have continued to receive various amounts from defendant No.5 up to the year 2024. However, a bare perusal of the consideration that is stated in the said document would indicate that majority of the payments have been made by defendant Nos.1 to 4 to defendant No.5. The plaintiffs have further placed on record that they have continued to receive various amounts from defendant No.5 up to the year 2024. In this context, it is relevant to note that the plaintiffs had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 21.04.2017 with defendant No.5. The said Agreement of Sale dated 21.04.2017 was cancelled vide Cancellation Deed dated 19.08.2017, consequent to which, the HC-KAR Sale Date dated 19.08.2017 has been registered. It is pertinent to state here that the sale consideration mentioned in the Agreement of Sale has also been denied by the plaintiffs. However, details of the consideration have been set out. 21. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the plaintiffs are educated persons and have signed various documents and all transactions pertaining to the suit property were within their knowledge and merely due to some misunderstanding between defendant No.5 and the plaintiffs, the present suit has been filed with an oblique motives. 22. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that defendant Nos.1 and 5 were introduced to the plaintiffs’ as partners and transactions were entered into by the plaintiffs with defendant No.1 initially and thereafter with defendant Nos.1 to 4. 23. Be that as it may, having regard to the transactions, there are various questions which are un-answered and on prima facie appreciation of the material on record, it is clear that the considerations enumerated in the Agreement of Sale and the Sale Deed are sought to be asserted HC-KAR by defendant Nos.1 to 4 and denied by the plaintiffs. The said aspect is required to be adjudicated during the course of trial. 24. With regard to the plea that has been set up by the plaintiffs in this suit vis-à-vis the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017, it is the specific contention of the appellants/plaintiffs that the plea is one of “non est factum” and the plaintiffs who were the signatories to the document were mistaken as to the character of the document at the time of signing of the document. Hence, they would contend that they are not bound by the same. Hence, they would contend that they are not bound by the same. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the said Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 being a registered document, the presumption of a registered document would enure to the benefit of the defendants and hence, the assertion of the plaintiffs is liable to be rejected. 25. The effect of the documents vis-à-vis the contention of rival parties is an aspect that is to be adjudicated during the course of trial. However, at the present juncture, it is relevant to note that the plaintiffs are educated persons and their signatures forthcoming in the Agreement of Sale dated 21.04.2017 and the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 are one and the same. The rights inter se between the parties having regard to the contentions are required to be adjudicated in trial. It is also relevant to note that Defendant Nos.1 to 4 also assert various loan transactions between them and the plaintiffs. 26. While considering whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an equitable order of injunction, it is also relevant to note that the plaintiffs were arrayed as party respondents in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and they have filed their statement of objections to the said proceedings. While contesting the said proceedings, the plaintiffs had access to legal advice and were represented by an Advocate. In the said statement of objections, there is specific reference to the conversion order 03.06.1983. A bare perusal of the Agreement of Sale dated 21.04.2017 would also indicate a reference made to the conversion order dated 03.06.1983. Despite the same, it is the specific assertion of the plaintiffs in the plaint that the suit property is still an unconverted land. 27. Another aspect that is required to be noticed is that, it is the contention of the defendants that possession of the suit property was handed over consequent to the execution of the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 and thereafter defendant Nos.1 to 4 have executed various Sale Deeds in favour of the subsequent purchasers i.e., defendant Nos.6 to 27 from the year 2023 onwards. It is the specific contention of the defendants that the construction on a few sites had commenced consequent to the execution of the Sale Deeds and the plaintiffs who were residing adjacent to the suit property were aware of the constructions that have been put up by the subsequent purchasers in the sites purchased by them. 28. It is also relevant to note at this juncture that a reference has been made to the fact that a few of the original title documents have been lost and reference has also been made to affidavits filed by the plaintiffs as also a police complaint dated 08.08.2017 having been lodged in that regard. 29. The Trial Court while considering IA Nos.1 and 2 has noticed that the plaintiffs having suppressed the facts and the defendants having put up construction over the suit property, the question of granting injunction would not arise as it would cause irreparable loss and injury to the defendants. 30. Having regard to the aforementioned, it is clear that while appreciating the rival contentions put forth by the parties, with regard to the exercise of discretion for grant of an interim relief, it is imperative for a party approaching the Court to place all true and correct facts on record, which in the present case cannot be said so, vis-à-vis the plaintiffs. As rightly noticed by the Trial Court, despite the conversion order dated 03.06.1983 being specifically forthcoming from the material on record and as noticed above despite a specific mention made to the conversion order dated 03.06.1983 in the Agreement of Sale dated 21.04.2017, the plaintiffs have specifically taken a plea in the plaint that the suit property is not converted. Further, there is an inordinate delay from the date of execution of the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2017 up to the date of filing of the suit i.e., 12.8.2024, in the plaintiffs having approached the Court. Although it is the contention of the plaintiffs that various amounts were continued to be paid to the plaintiffs and hence there was a delay in approaching the Court, having regard to the fact that various transactions have already taken place and the plaintiffs have not approached the Court by placing all the material on record, the conduct of the plaintiffs itself disentitles them from any discretionary order at the present stage. 31. 31. It is clear from the aforementioned that the plaintiffs have not disclosed all true and correct facts while filing the suit. In this context, it is relevant to notice the following judgments: 31.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seema Arshad Zaheer and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others , [ (2006) 5 SCC 282 ] held as follows: “ 30. The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff : (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of the plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of the plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of the defendant's rights or likely infringement of the defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.” (emphasis supplied) 31.2 A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri B. Rajendra Prasad and Sri T.K. Sadashiva Reddy , MFA No.874/2022 (High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Bench) DD 23.6.2022 has held as follows: “15. The delay in commencement of the suit and the conduct which is not equitable cannot be ignored in deciding on the merits of an application for temporary injunction. Prima facie, these circumstances render themselves to a reasonable inference that all the materials are not brought on record. It is salient that a plaintiff, to be entitled to the equitable relief of temporary injunction must come to the Court with clean hands and even if the plaintiff satisfies the other requirements of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, but fails on this requirement, the Courts will not grant the relief of temporary injunction. Therefore, no exception can be taken with the civil Court opining that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts.” (emphasis supplied) 32. Therefore, no exception can be taken with the civil Court opining that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts.” (emphasis supplied) 32. It is pertinent to note here that the plaintiffs having filed the suit for adequate relief, pending adjudication of the suit, having regard to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 since any alienation made would be subject to the ultimate result of the suit, the interest of the plaintiffs in that regard is adequately safeguarded. 33. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the orders passed by the Trial Court are in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court and that the reliefs sought for in the present appeals is required to be granted. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 34. With the aforesaid observations, the above appeal stands disposed of. 35. The observations made by the Trial Court in the impugned orders dated 02.06.2025 as also this Court in the above order are only for the purpose of consideration of IA.Nos.1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall adjudicate upon the suit upon its merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the said orders. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.