In property disputes involving conflicting claims, the court must evaluate the evidence presented to determine the balance of convenience and the necessity for a trial to resolve ownership issues.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and also the counsel appearing for respondent.

2. This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.592/2022, wherein prayer was made to restrain defendant or his henchmen from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court partly allowed the application and directed the defendant not to put up any construction.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff is that while seeking relief of temporary injunction, it is contended that he is the absolute owner and is in possession of the suit schedule property bearing House List No.14, V.P. Khata No.297/A/14, Byatarayanapura CMC Khatha No.1250, situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring East-West on Northern side 60 feet, on southern side 57 feet and North-south 40 feet, totally 2340 sq.ft, which she has purchased from its erstwhile owner, under register sale deed dated 07.09.2006. It is also contended that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant who is utter stranger started interfering with the suit schedule property. She resisted the defendant's illegal act and the defendant did not care to stop his interference and she informed the same to jurisdictional police and the police did not care to take any action against them. Hence, she filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and sought for interlia temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. The defendant appeared and filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff does not have any right title over the property and defendant is in possession of suit schedule property. The defendant by virtue of his ownership acquired by him by way of registered sale deed dated 04.09.2021 measuring East-West 30 feet, North-South 40 feet totally measuring about 1200 sq.ft. together with one square A.C. sheed roofed house constructed with cement and brick re oxide flooring with jungle wood doors and windows. The defendant also contends that he got electric connection and in order to substantiate fact of possession, occupation and enjoyment of the property, which has been purchased by him Sy.No.102/01 relied upon the electric connection and payment receipts. The defendant claims that he is in possession of the property. The allegations made in the plaint is that he entered upon the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff and removed an electricity connection is erroneous. The Trial Court taking note of the pleadings of the both the parties formulated the points whether there is prima-facie case, balance of convenience and hardship to grant the relief. Taking into material on record Trial Court comes to the conclusion that having considered the documents and analyzing the contentions made by both the parties, it is crystal clear that, at present the plaintiff and defendants both are in possession of the plaint schedule property and both have documents to show that they are the owners. This Court cannot come to the conclusion that who is the owner of the property because this case is filed for seeking injunction and this Court has to evaluate the suit as per merits of the case depending upon cogent evidence and proved documents. The Trial Court considered the material on record, partly allowed the application and directed the defendant not to construct or make any structure in the suit schedule property from the date of this order till the disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the order, the present appeal is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the Trial Court committed an error in partly allowing the same and not granting the relief of injunction as sought for in the application and the Trial Court ought to have granted relief in respect of the suit schedule pro