1. Heard the appellant’s counsel and respondent’s counsel.

2. This appeal is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2017 on I.A.Nos.1 and 2. The defendant filed the I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and I.A.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. By the impugned order, the trial Court restrained the defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also from dispossessing the plaintiff’s from the suit property without due process of law by allowing I.A.No.1. The trial Court rejected the I.A.No.2 filed by the defendant.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in respect of Site No.14, Khatha No.152 formed in Sy. No.41/4, Singaiana palya Village, Devasandra Dhakle, Mahadevapura Post, K.R.Pura Hobli, measuring East to West 35 feet and North to South 40 feet. The plaintiff’s claims the ownership over to the suit property through a registered Sale Deed dated 25.02.1994. She claims to have obtained the revenue records transferred to her name. She alleged interference by the defendant’s and therefore she filed the suit.

4. In the written statement. the defendant contended that originally the site measuring East to West 25 feet and North to South 40 feet was carved in Sy.No.41/14. The said site belonged to one Aneppa. He sold the same in favour of M.S.Babajan, S/o Hayathsab, under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1964. The said M.S.Babajan sold the said property in favour of one Shivarao S/o Madhav Rao, under a registered sale deed 7.4.1971. The said Shivarao sold the property in favour of Dasappa. It is also stated that the husband of plaintiff namely Ramalinga @ Ramalingappa caused interference with the possession of Dasappa. Therefore he filed a suit in O.S.No.3762/1992 against the plaintiff’s husband. The said suit was decreed on 24.8.1993 and the said decree was not challenged at all. It is also stated that the schedule property merged with the BBMP and thereafter khatha was transferred in the name of Dasappa. He died on 3.5.1999. Thereafter, the sons of Dasappa obtained khatha in their name and then sold the same in favour of the defendant through registered deed dated 23.08.2016. It is further contended that the plaintiff has purchased the site by virtue of the sale deed dated 25.2.1994 from T.Ramalingppa. The vendor of the plaintiff appears to have purchased the suit property on 8.9.1983 and it was not a registered sale deed and therefore plaintiff would not derive a title better then that of vendor.

5. The Trial Court having perused the documents produced by either side of the parties came to the conclusion that the property being claimed by the plaintiff is different from the property claimed by the defendant. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the plaintiff was in possession over the suit property and therefore the plaintiff had made out a primafacie case. It also arrived at a conclusion that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and if an injunction was not granted, the plaintiff’s interest would be very much affected.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argues that the decree passed in O.S.No.3762/1992 filed by the Dasappa against Ramalinga @ Ramalingappa, plaintiff’s husband is not challenged and it has become final. The defendant is in possession of the suit property and that there are documents to this effect. The Trial Court should not have given a finding that plaintiff was in possession on the date of the suit. He also argues that the plaintiff claims two reliefs in the same application and that the plaintiff should have confined the prayer one of the two and the trail Court has not taken this aspect of the matter inspite of the same being brought to his notice. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, the trial Court has wrongly exercise discretion in granting an order of temporary injunction. He also submits that suit property is vacant and entire property is now fenced.

7.