CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter has been heard on more than one occasion at length. Coming up for admission, the matter is heard again and disposed of finally by the following order: ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Aland numbered as O. S. 76/85 seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 6 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit-land which he claimed to have purchased from its owner Gangawa for valuable consideration under the suit sale deed. He also filed an application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. for temporary injunction. The defendants entered appearance and resisted. In the Written statement, they contended that they were tenants cultivating the land under Gangawa, gangawa in or about the year 1960 had promised their father Gurulingappa that after her death, he would become the owner and till then they should continue to cultivate the land as tenants. They further averred that Gangawa continuously leased the land for cultivation. They supported their case by filing the affidavits of certain neighbouring land owners who deposed that they were in occupation and cultivation of the said land. ( 3 ) THE trial Court declined to accept the version put forward by the defendants mainly for two reasons: (1) that the Pahani extracts for the year 1983-84, that is, the year immediately prior to the suit, showed the plaintiff as the cultivator and owner; and (2) that there was no proof of tenancy offered by the defendants except the Record of Rights for the year 1973-74to 1978-79which showed them as tenants. ( 4 ) THE suit-property measures 4 acres 30 guntas in Survey No. 1/7. That it is the correct measurement of the land is supported by certified extract of Record of rights and tenancy and Crop Register produced by the parties. That Gangawa was the owner of the property is also not disputed. ( 4 ) THE suit-property measures 4 acres 30 guntas in Survey No. 1/7. That it is the correct measurement of the land is supported by certified extract of Record of rights and tenancy and Crop Register produced by the parties. That Gangawa was the owner of the property is also not disputed. In the absence of prima-facie proof of tenancy and in the absence of any averment that they had sought occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession having regard to the Mutation proceedings resulting in change in the record of Rights in the year 1980, the year in which it was purchased by Gangawa from the plaintiffs. The defendants on filing an appeal, the appellate Court has reversed the finding and interfered with the order solely on the ground that the Record of Rights for the years 1973-74 to 1978-79 ought not to have been ignored. While doing so, it has totally failed to notice the probative value that should be attached to a subsequent entry in the Record of Rights. If for any reason the documents were at variance and the appellate Court could not make up its mind, then it should discard both sets of documents and proceed to examine the probabilities of the case on other evidence. The only other evidence is the sale deed by gangawa which is not disputed and the affidavits filed by the neighbouring owners. The affidavits filed by the defendants in support of their plea that they are in cultivation and possesion of the land does not appear to be supported by any application made by them to register them as occupants before the competent authority. The fact that they have contested the injunction suit shows that they are not wholly ignorant. They have had the legal advise and atleast they had the intelligence to approach a lawyer to contest the injunction suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that they were unaware of the provisions made under the Karnataka Land Reforms act. Even in this Court information was called for from the Counsel as to whether they have made out a case for treating them as tenants. It was submitted by the Counsel that no application for occupancy rights was ever made under the Karnataka Land reforms Act. Even in this Court information was called for from the Counsel as to whether they have made out a case for treating them as tenants. It was submitted by the Counsel that no application for occupancy rights was ever made under the Karnataka Land reforms Act. So, it is in the light of those facts that the lower appellate Court should have directed itself to examine the evidence if it had come to the conclusion that the reasoning adopted by the Munsiff was perverse and not based on the material at all. If the reasoning adopted by the Munsiff in the trial Court was not perverse and was not witout any basis or any material before him, then the appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the finding of the trial Court, it is well recognised principle which has. been totally ignored by the lower appellate court. Therefore, the finding of the lower appellate Court calls for interference. Unless lawful possession of defendants is established by a prima facie case, the Court should lean in favour of the plaintiff who has produced such prima-facie evidence by poducing the sale deed and Record of Right entries for the years immediately prior to the filing of the suit. If ultimately on evidence it is found that respondents are in lawful possession, there is always scope to restore the possession. Even on the basis of balance of convenience, the lower appellate Court should have leaned in favour of the plaintiffs. But, unfortunately, this balance of convenience test has not been applied at all. ( 5 ) IN the result, the lower appellate court's order is set-aside as the revision petition succeeds and the order of the trial court on I. As. I and II is restored. ( 6 ) NO order as to costs. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .