RAMKUMAR, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) C.P.C, the appellants, who are the four plaintiffs in O.S.No.8/2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judges’ Court, Thodupuzha challenge the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the learned Sub Judge dismissing I.A.No.100/2011 which was an application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking a temporary injunction in the above suit.

2. The aforementioned suit is one for a permanent prohibitory injunction as well as mandatory injunction.

THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE

3. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is as follows:-

The plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint A and E schedule properties which are rubber plantations situated in Karimkunnam village and lying on either side of the Manjakadmbu-Ponnamthanam Panchayath road which runs east-west. The plaint A schedule property admeasuring about 3 acres is lying to the north of the aforesaid Panchayath road. The plaint E schedule property having an extent of about 2 acres lies to the south of the above Panchayath road. The western and northern boundary kayyala (mud wall) of the plaint A schedule property has been constructed after leaving outside the kayyala a narrow strip of land having a width of about 2 feet. The said narrow strip of land called “kottapadu” is for the future maintenance of the kayyala. The plaint B schedule property is the said kottapadu area. The property owners in that area leave such kottapadu as part of their custom and usage. Plaint C schedule property is the property of the 1st defendant lying on the northern and western boundaries of the plaint A schedule property beyond the plaint B schedule kottappadu. But the 1st defendant has no road access to the aforementioned Panchayath road because in between the plaint C schedule property and the Panchayath road there is a small bit of land which is the plaint D schedule property which also belongs to the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant had launched a project of constructing villas for sale in the plaint C schedule property. For the purpose of construction in the plaint C schedule property the 1st defendant had sought and obtained the permission of the plaintiffs to use the plaint D schedule property after raising the same to the level of the southern Panchayath road on the specific undertaking that no part of the proposed construction will encroach into the plaint B schedule kottappadu. There is a five feet wide thodu in the plaint E schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs. The said thodu shown as the plaint F schedule property is running northwards from the plaint E schedule property along the western boundary of the plaint C schedule property and then eastwards along the northern boundary of he plaint C schedule property belonging to the 1st defendant and eventually joins a bigger thodu running north-south on the east of he plaint A and C schedule properties. Plaint F schedule thodu is meant for draining the water collected in the plaint E schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are planters having properties in Palakkad district. They have other business concerns in the U.A.E. On account of their business pre-occupations, the plaintiffs were not available at the plaint A, D and E schedule properties. But in November 2011 the plaintiffs found that the 1st defendant had put up constructions in the plaint C schedule property in such a way as to encroach into the plaint B schedule kottapadu preventing access for the plaintiffs to the plaint B schedule kottapadu. There was encroachment into the plaint D schedule property as well. Defendants 2 to 5 are persons who have purchased four of the villas constructed by the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs also noted that the defendants had filled up the plaint F schedule thodu in such a way as to reduce its width from 5 feet to 2 feet and had annexed the filled up thodu to the plaint C schedule property for a width of 3 feet. They had also blocked the sluice installed in the thodu at t