This appeal is preferred calling in question the order dated 13.6.2016 passed in OS No.2847/2015 by the 29th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH30) on IA No.1, under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, wherein the trial Court after due contest by the parties has allowed the said application granting Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants (appellants herein) from interfering with the plaintiff’s (respondent herein) peaceful possession and enjoyment of the of the site No.11 carved out in Survey No.10/1A of Sarakki village, Bengaluru and consequently dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, by the appellant (Defendant).

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have carefully perused the order passed by the trial Court and the records.

3. Sri V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that, the trial Court has not properly considered the relevant factors in this particular case and not properly assessed the location of the properties involved and wrongly interpreted the documents of title of the plaintiff and the defendants without ascertaining the proper source of title and the possession of the parties respectively over the properties and wrongly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of injunction. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the trial Court failed to observe that under the guise of the title deeds in respect of site No.11, the plaintiff is making hectic attempts to come on the property of the defendants in site No.19 carved in Survey No.10/2. The trial Court has also not properly appreciated the balance of inconvenience which is on the part of the defendant. Therefore, the trial Court without giving any finding with regard to the identification of the properties has wrongly granted the injunction order in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

4. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondent Sri Subba Rao, has taken me through the relevant materials in the pleadings as well as the documents produced by the plaintiff and defendants and contended that the trial Court in fact has in detail considered the pleadings of the parties and also the documents on record and thereafter, came to a definite conclusion that the plaintiff’s property and defendants’ property are altogether different with specific distinction, therefore, the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. The trial Court has also considered all the relevant materials to come to the conclusion that the balance of inconvenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs in granting injunction.

5. The learned counsel also strenuously argued with regard to the admission made by the defendants in the pleadings specifically admitting that the plaint schedule property and the written statement property are altogether different. When such being the case, the defendant cannot interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On these grounds, the learned counsel contended that the order passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking production of the judgment passed in RFA No.428/2009 and the lease agreement between Sri N.A. JAYARAM and M/S.NANO DIAGNOSTICS and also the katha certificate pertaining to site No.19 of Sarakki village and also certain photographs and receipt issued by BESCOM.

7. First, I would like to consider the respective cases of the parties as put forth by them in their pleadings. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of site bearing No.11 carved out in Survey No.10/1A of Sarakki village measuring East to West 50’ and North to Sou