( 1. ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 793/2004, on the file of XXX Additional City Civil Court at Bangalore, have filed this appeal against the orders passed on LA No. 10 dated 19. 7. 2008.

( 2. ) THERE are concluded incidental proceedings between parties to suit in respect of suit 'a' and 'b' schedule properties. Therefore, in this appeal, parties would be referred to by their names.

The II-defendant namely Manjunath D. Patil and plaintiff namely somashekar D. Patil are the sons of I-defendant namely D.S. Patil. Somashekar D. Patil has filed the present suit against D.S. Patil and manjunath D. Patil for partition and separate possession of his l/3rd share in suit 'a', 'b', 'c and 'd' schedule properties. 'a' schedule property is a residential house situate at No. 18, 4th Cross, Central Excise Layout, vijayanagar, Bangalore. 'b' schedule property is an industrial shed bearing no. 32/25, situate at 2nd Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, bangalore - 10, wherein D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil are running a printing press in the name and style of 'lotus Printers'. In 'c schedule property, Somashekar D. Patil has mentioned five sites situate in different localities which are bereft of other details. 'd' schedule properties are moveable properties stated to be existent in plaint 'a' schedule property. D.S. Patil had filed O.S. No. 6826/2003 for a decree of permanent injunction against Somashekar D. Patil in respect of 'b' schedule property. The suit was contested by Somashekar D. Patil on the ground that plaint 'b' schedule property is a joint family property and he is one of the co owners of 'b' schedule property and he has undivided share in the same. The suit in O.S. No. 6826/2003 was decreed on 6. 12. 2006 and permanent injunction was granted to restrain Somashekar D. Patil from interfering with D.S. Patil's possession of 'b' schedule property.

( 3. ) AFTER institution of the present suit, Somashekar D. Patil had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to restrain D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from alienating suit schedule properties. The trial court by order dated 16.4.2004, dismissed the application.

( 4. ) D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil had made an application under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim mandatory injunction for removal of Somashekar D. Patil from possession of 'a' schedule property and restoration of status quo ante as it existed prior to 28.3.2007, inter alia contending:-

On 28. 3. 2007, Somashekar D. Patil had forcibly dispossessed D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from 'a' schedule property and Somashekar D. Patil has been in wrongful possession of 'a' schedule property, Somashekar d. Patil had taken law into his hands to achieve this unlawful object. Therefore, D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil had sought for removal of somashekar D. Patil from possession of 'a' schedule property and restore possession of 'a' schedule property to D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil. This application was contested by Somashekar D. Patil on the ground that he being one of the co-owners has been in lawful possession of 'a' schedule property D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil have invented story of forcible dispossession to dispossess Somashekar D. Patil from 'a' schedule property. The trial Court by order dated 26. 6. 2007, dismissed the application, against said order, D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil were before this Court in MFA No. 8718/2007. This Court by judgment dated 29. 5. 2008 remanded the matter to trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law by taking note of all relevant material on record. The trial Court reheard the matter and dismissed the application by order dated 19. 7. 2008. Therefore, D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil are before this Court.

I have heard Sri S. Vijay Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for appellants and Sri H. M. Mariyappa, learned Counsel for respondent.

( 5. ) SRI S. Vijay Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for appellants has made fo