ORDER : 1. Batch of these petitions call in question an order dated 04-11-2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in M.A.Nos.24 of 2024, 21 of 2024, 22 of 2024 and 23 of 2024 respectively, by which the order dated 07-03-2024 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on I.A.No.I filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, in O.S.No.1255 of 2023, 1258 of 2023, 1256 of 2023 and 1257 of 2023 respectively, refusing to grant temporary injunction, comes to be granted. 2. Heard Sri C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.B.Chandachooda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Facts, in brief, are as follows: - Since the contentions urged in all the petitions are same, except the change in original suit numbers and miscellaneous appeal numbers, for understanding, the facts as narrated in W.P.No.2384 of 2025 are narrated: The petitioners 1 and 2, in the case at hand, are said to be daughters and the 3 rd petitioner is said to be the son-in-law of one late Hanumaiah and his wife late Rangamma. The 1 st respondent/plaintiff institutes a suit in O.S.No.1255 of 2023 against the petitioners and other respondents/defendants before the civil Court seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any one interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The 2 nd petitioner is said to have filed a detailed written statement and opposed the claim of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1255 of 2023 and filed a memo for treating the written statement as objections to the interim application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The trial Court answering the aforesaid application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, rejected the application filed by the plaintiff and declined to grant any injunction in terms of its order dated 07-03-2024. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the refusal to favour an order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, preferred an appeal before the 1 st Appellate Court in M.A.No.24 of 2024. The 1 st Appellate Court grants an interim order of injunction, by upturning the order passed by the trial Court. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioners/defendants 3 to 5 in O.S.No.1255 of 2023. 4. The 1 st Appellate Court grants an interim order of injunction, by upturning the order passed by the trial Court. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioners/defendants 3 to 5 in O.S.No.1255 of 2023. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners’ Sri C. Shankar Reddy vehemently submits that the order of the 1 st Appellate Court is without affording appropriate opportunity to the petitioners. The 1 st Appellate Court ignores that in a portion of the suit schedule property there is a family burial ground which is brought to the notice of the Court by producing photographs. The remaining portion is being cultivated by the family of defendants 3 and 4/petitioners. They are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. The 1 st petitioner and another have challenged RTC entries that went against them in Revision Petition No.118 of 2024 before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner refused to grant an interim order of stay and the 1 st petitioner aggrieved thereby has preferred Writ Petition No.11630 of 2024 which is pending, with no stay operating in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel would thus contend that the petitioners’ rights be protected, as protected by the trial Court and the order of the 1 st Appellate Tribunal be set aside or status quo qua the suit schedule property be maintained by parties till the disposal of the suit. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri M.B.Chandrachooda would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the petitioners have no right over the suit schedule property and 1 st respondent/plaintiff is not using any portion of the property of the petitioners and other defendants. The trial Court had erred in refusing to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The 1 st Appellate Court has now, on looking into entire material, has granted injunction against these petitioners. He would, therefore, contend that there nothing wrong in the order, as the suit is pending for adjudication. 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 afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. The suits are pending for adjudication. The interim protection that is sought in the suits, which is refused to be granted by the trial Court has been granted by the 1 st Appellate Court. 7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. The suits are pending for adjudication. The interim protection that is sought in the suits, which is refused to be granted by the trial Court has been granted by the 1 st Appellate Court. For better understanding of the submissions, it is appropriate to notice the reasons for rejection of the prayer for temporary injunction by the trial Court in O.S.No.1255 of 2023. They read as follows: “…. …. …. 15. I have carefully gone through the documents produced by the plaintiff. On perusal of the sale deed dated 23-08-2008, it reveals that one C.Nagaraju, Nagarathna, Jayamma, P.C. Nagarathna and Manjula have executed the said sale deed in favour of one Krishnappa who is the husband of the plaintiff in respect of property bearing Sy.No.28/33 measuring 32 guntas out of 1 acre 8 guntas and Sy.No.29/1 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas i.e., the suit schedule A and B properties for valuable sale consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/-. On perusal of MR. No.30/2008-09, it reveals that the katha of the property Sy.No.28/33 measuring 32 guntas and Sy.No.29/1 measuring 1 acre 08 guntas were transferred in the name of Krishnappa who is the husband of the Plaintiff. The RTC standing in the name of the husband of the plaintiff. Subsequently on 27-04-2020, the said Krishnappa died. Thereafter the katha of the suit schedule A and B properties were transferred in the name of the plaintiff. In this respect, the RTC extracts also standing in the name of the plaintiff. The RTC extracts reveals that the plaintiff has been in possession over the suit schedule A and B properties under the pavathi katha. On perusal of the photographs, it appears that the plaintiff has been in possession over the suit schedule properties. … … … 19. On careful perusal of the documents produced by both the parties, it is forthcoming that the husband of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 and 2 and others under the registered sale deed dated 23- 08-2008 for the valuable sale consideration. Admittedly one Rangamma and Puttarangamma have filed suit for partition and separate possession before the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. On perusal of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court, it reveals that already the Hon’ble Appellate Court has granted status quo order in respect of the suit schedule properties. Admittedly one Rangamma and Puttarangamma have filed suit for partition and separate possession before the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. On perusal of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court, it reveals that already the Hon’ble Appellate Court has granted status quo order in respect of the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, the husband of the plaintiff who is the purchaser of the suit schedule property is also a party in the said suit. Therefore, if any order passed by this Court in respect of the suit schedule properties the same is contrary/conflict of interest to the order of the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge. The plaintiff is also a party to the said suit as L.Rs of said late Krishnappa. Therefore, the plaintiff ought to have filed present application before the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge Court to get the appropriate relief. Therefore, the plaintiff is at liberty to file present application before that Court to get appropriate relief. At this stage, in view of the pending of suit for partition and order of status quo, this Court cannot pass any order. Therefore, the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case in her favour to grant temporary injunction. Accordingly, this court answered Point No.1 in the Negative.” This is called in question by the 1 st respondent/plaintiff before the 1 st Appellate Court. The 1 st Appellate Court on a re-look at the entire matter now holds that balance of convenience would be in favour of the plaintiff for grant temporary injunction. The reasons so rendered by the 1 st Appellate Court in M.A.No.24 of 2024 are as follows: “…. …. …. 10. The defendants herein dispute the plaintiff’s title and possession over the suit schedule property and submitted that O.S.1740 of 2008 is pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. The trial Court after considering the material placed on record has arrived to a conclusion that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property but in the said order, the possession was not protected by the trial Court only on the ground that O.S.1740 of 2008 is pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge which was filed by the family members of defendants herein for the relief of partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the vacation court had granted an ad interim order of temporary injunction in respect of suit schedule property. In that suit temporary injunction was with respect to alienation of the suit schedule property in favour of third parties and also with respect to restraining the defendants from damaging the stones tombs on the schedule Item No.6, 7 and 8 of properties therein in any manner pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court considering the status quo order granted by the vacation court in O.S.1740 of 2008 has restrained itself from granting the temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff/appellant and also observed that the interim order is still in force and if an interim order of protection is granted to the plaintiff, the same would be misused by the plaintiff thereby would trespass into the suit schedule property and dispossess the defendants from the suit schedule property. 11. It is important to note that though O.S.No.1740 of 2008 is pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District with respect to partition and separate possession, the present suit is instituted by the plaintiff herein is for the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff herein aggrieved by the interference made by the defendants has approached this Court to protect his possession over the suit schedule property. Since the sale deed and revenue records prima facie reveal that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 23-08-2008 and as recital makes it clear that the vendors of plaintiff had handed over the possession of the suit schedule property to the appellant’s husband, this Court infers that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. 12. However, it is pertinent to note that an order of status quo was granted in O.S.1740 of 2008 only with respect to alienation and demolition of stones in the schedule item No.6, 7 and 8 of the properties in that suit. Since the plaintiff is in possession by virtue of sale deed, any order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge in O.S.1740 of 2008 does not come in the way to protect the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Since the plaintiff is in possession by virtue of sale deed, any order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge in O.S.1740 of 2008 does not come in the way to protect the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated in O.S.1740 of 2008 and until then the plaintiff’s possession over the schedule property has to be protected in the instant suit. 13. Another important observation that is made by the trial Court is that plaintiff ought to have filed the present application before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District to get appropriate relief. It is important to note that the plaintiff/appellant herein is not a party to the suit in O.S.1740 of 2008 and moreover, if the plaintiff is arrayed as defendant in the said suit, an application for temporary injunction by the plaintiff in the stand as defendant cannot sustain. Hence, the plaintiff has rightly filed the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Till outcome of the judgment and decree in O.S. 1740 of 2008, plaintiff’s possession, which he has acquired by virtue of sale deed dated 21-03-2011 has to be protected. Since the plaintiff herein is not a party to the suit in O.S.1740 of 2008, which is evident from the plaint copy furnished by the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that defendants had conveyed possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by virtue of sale deed and since the suit schedule property is an agricultural property and as the plaintiff has to carry out the agricultural activity in the schedule property, the rights of the plaintiff has to be protected until adjudication of the claim in the suit before the trial Court. Therefore, the plaintiff has made out prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Since the possession is handed over by the defendants herein by virtue of the sale deed, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff. If an order of temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiff/ appellant will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the plaintiff has made out prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Since the possession is handed over by the defendants herein by virtue of the sale deed, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff. If an order of temporary injunction is not granted, the plaintiff/ appellant will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the trial court though has rightly observed the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property has declined to defend the same in view of the pendency and interim order in O.S.1740 of 2008. Hence, in view of the error apparent in the order passed by the trial Court, the same has to be set aside and accordingly, I answer the above points in the affirmative. 14. Point No.3 : For the reasons discussed supra, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant/ plaintiff U/Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC is allowed. Hereby set aside the Order dated:07-03-2024 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in O.S.1255 of 2023 on I.A.I. Consequently, defendants/respondents, his assignees or anybody claiming under them are hereby by an order of temporary injunction restrained from interfering with the appellant/plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit.” The concerned Court holds that the petitioners/defendants dispute the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and original suit in O.S.No.1740 of 2008 in that regard is pending before the concerned Court. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, holds that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, but possession was not protected only on the ground that O.S.No.1740 of 2008 is pending, which is filed by the family members of the present defendants for partition and separate possession. The 1 st Appellate Court rightly concludes that the said suit is yet to reach its logical conclusion. The 1 st Appellate Court further observes that the sale deed and revenue records prima facie reveal that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property in terms of the sale deed dated 23-08-2008 and as such, the trial Court ought to have granted temporary injunction. On all these factors, the 1 st Appellate Court holds that balance of convenience is in favour of grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 8. On all these factors, the 1 st Appellate Court holds that balance of convenience is in favour of grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 8. The order passed by the 1 st Appellate Court is in the nature of protecting rights of the plaintiff, until adjudication of the claim in the suits, as the suit schedule property is the subject matter of sale deeds and since then the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, on a prima facie view, to protect the rights of the plaintiff, the 1 st Appellate Court has passed an order of grant of temporary injunction. No fault can be found with the order passed by the 1 st Appellate Court, which is based on sound and cogent reasons. This Court is not deciding the suit. It is only deciding rejection of the application and acceptance of the application, by the trial Court and the 1 st Appellate Court respectively. The scope of interference is limited to the order being perverse, for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any such perversity in the order warranting interference. 9. Petitions lacking in merit, stand rejected.