The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in temporary injunction cases and cannot interfere based on title unless clearly shown as capricious or unreasonable.

ORDER :

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 16.10.2014 passed in M.A.No.8/2014 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere.

2. Heard.

3. Sri.R.Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondents to execute a rectification deed for correcting the survey number of the suit schedule property from 49/5 to 47/7. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application seeking temporary injunction against the respondents during the pending of the suit. It is submitted that the Trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application after hearing the parties. However, the Appellate Court reversed the order of the Trial Court by the impugned order. It is further submitted that the deceased-petitioner No.1 purchased the suit schedule property from one Lakkavva. However, in the sale deed, an inadvertent mistake with regard to the survey number had crept in. The boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 18.02.1963 tally with the boundaries of Sy.No.47/7 of Kabbur Village, Davanagere Taluk. The possession of the petitioners is evident from the document placed before the Court. The Gazette notification dated 02.12.1965 indicates that 13 guntas of the land has been acquired in Sy.No.47/7 wherein Neelappa is shown as anubhavadar. Further, communication dated 15.10.2013 at Annexure-J of the respondent No.1 to the Tahsildar clearly indicates that the petitioners are in possession of the suit schedule property. The Tahsildar forwarded the said communication at Anneuxre-J to the jurisdictional police indicating that the respondent No.1 has sought for police protection to dispossess the petitioners from the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on the mahazar at Annexure-H dated 16.05.2012 which further makes it clear that the petitioners have filed an application for effecting the entry in the RTC in respect of the suit schedule property and at that time, the said mahazar was drawn which also establishes the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property. It is also submitted that the Appellate Court did not appreciate the documentary evidence placed by the petitioners and proceeded to record its finding on title, which is impermissible. The Appellate Court, based on the recent entries in the RTC, allowed the appeal. It is submitted that now the respondents, after the disposal of the appeal are trying to dispossess the petitioners high-handedly. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, Sri.K.R.Patil, learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned order of the Appellate Court and submits that the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.47/7 stand in the name of the respondents and the petitioners failed to prove that they have purchased Sy.No.47/7 from its owner. It is submitted that the Appellate Court considered the entire material on record and passed a detailed order by recording the prima facie opinion that the petitioners failed to make out a ground for injunction and hence, allowed the appeal. He seeks to dismiss the petition.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

6. The petitioners filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking for execution of rectification deed for correcting the survey number of the suit schedule property from 49/5 to 47/7. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, was filed by the petit