The main legal point established is that in property disputes, the court may grant injunctions based on the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, as provided under Section 227 of the Karnataka Civil Court Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners aggrieved by the order dtd. 13/7/2021 passed on I.A.1 in O.S.No.219/2020 by the Principal Civil Judge, JMFC, Magadi and order dtd. 6/1/2022 passed in M.A.No.6/2021 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Magadi have filed the present writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

Respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.219/2020 seeking for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants.

In the said suit, the respondent No.1 filed an application seeking for an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from preventing the movement of respondent No.1 through schedule 'D' property to access 'A' schedule property. In support of the said application, respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit contending that he is the absolute owner of the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.64/2 measuring 0.06 guntas and land in Sy.No.64/3 measuring 3 acres 32.08 guntas and Sy.No.73/2 (new No.73/4) measuring 1 acre 2 guntas including karab land and Sy.No.73/3 (new No.73/5) measuring 1 acre 1 gunta including karab and kuski land, all situated at Mallur Dakhale which are referred to as schedule 'A' properties.

It is contended that all the four properties are situated adjoining to each other. Item No.1 and 2 of 'A' schedule property were purchased under the registered sale deed dtd. 21/1/2019 and item Nos.3 and 4 are purchased under the registered sale deed dtd. 18/7/2019. It is contended that the respondent No.1 is in possession of 'A' schedule property since from the date of purchase. The name of respondent No.1 was entered in coloumn No.10 and coloumn No.12 (2) of the RTC extract and is paying the land revenue.

It is further contended that appellants No.1 to 3 are the owners in possession of the land Sy.No.64/1 measuring 28 guntas. Petitioner No.1 acquired 'B' schedule property under registered sale deed dtd. 13/3/2006 and respondent No.4 is the owner in possession of Sy.No.63/1 measuring 2 acres. Respondent No.2 acquired schedule 'C' property under registered release deed 9/8/2016.

It is further contended that there has been an existence of the path way which runs from Mallur Village to Pemmanahalli village and the said pathway runs through the land bearing Sy.No.64, now it is numbered as Sy.No.64/1. It is contended that the first respondent's predecessors were utilisting the said route to reach their respective properties. The petitioners are interfering in the existing route. Hence, respondent No.1 has filed an application seeking for an order of temporary injunction.

The said application was opposed by the petitioners by filing objections and also written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and in the application and prayed to reject the application.

The trial Court after hearing the parties, allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 vide order dtd. 13/7/2021. The petitioners aggrieved by the order on I.A.1 passed by the Trial Court preferred appeal in M.A.No.06/2021. The Appellate Court on re- appreciation of material on record also dismissed the appeal vide order dtd. 6/1/2022. The petitioners being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below have filed this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned orders. He further submits that the findings recorded by the courts below are contrary to the records. He further submits that the courts below have not properly considered the documents produced by the parties. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. Respondent No.1 had purc