ORDER

1. This petition by the defendants in O.S. No. 186/2023 and is directed against the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 passed on I.A. No. 2 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, whereby the application I.A. No. 2 filed by the respondent – plaintiff for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners – defendants from causing obstruction to the agricultural development activities by the respondent – plaintiff over the suit schedule property was allowed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court in M.A. No. 25/2023 dated 12.02.2024.

2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners – defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. Along with the suit, the respondent – plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction, the same was contested by the petitioners – defendants and was allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.08.2023. Said order was challenged by the petitioners – defendants by way of an appeal in M.A. No. 25/2023 which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide order dated 12.02.2024 which is assailed in the present petition.

3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that both the Courts have correctly and properly considered and appreciated the material on record to come to the prima facie concision that the respondent – plaintiff was entitled to an order of temporary injunction in her favour as against the petitioners – defendants. Upon re-evaluation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity nor the same can be said to be capricious or perverse warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath reported in 2015 (5) SCC 423.

4. It is also pertinent to note that while coming at the aforesaid conclusion the tri al Court recorded the following finding:

12. Point No.1: It is the case of the plaintiff that, she has purchased the plaint schedule property for the valid consideration from one Dhanavathi through the registered sale deed. Since from the date of purchase plaintiff as acquired absolute right and title over the suit schedule property and continuing the possession and enjoyment till today. Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any let or hindrance. Based on the registered sale deed RTC and other revenue document got mutated in the name of plaintiff. Suit schedule property consist areca and coconut plantation developed by the plaintiff. To the western side of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No. 14/4 some government land of situated in Sy.No. 66/2 of Perady village. The said adjoining government land forms direct Kumki privilege lands to the suit schedule property. Defendants are residing in a house located in plaintiff kumki property. The property/house site granted in favour of 2nd defendant. Whether the defendants are residing along with their children are entirely distinct and separate from the suit schedule property. Plaintiff is permitted to occupy the 1st defendant in the house situated in the suit schedule property as he is none otherthan her husband brother. Infact plaintiff is permitted to collect and use the usufructs/ agricultural crops of suit schedule property to the 1st defendant and used it accordingly to his will and wish. Plaintiff and her husband recently taking care of suit schedule property and carrying agricultural operation therein the 1st defendant with a malafide intention to harass the plaintiff lodge complaint before SHO Venoor. The suit schedule property was measured and boundary got fixed. The defenda