M. P. CHINNAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE undisputed facts are that on 13/9/1969 c. Narayanappa and his son-in-law c. M. Narayanappa jointly purchased land bearing S. No. 82/2a measuring 1. ac. 31 gs. situated at Kolar from gurappa and his children. C. Narayanappa and his son-in-law C. M. Narayanappa died in 1981 and 1984 respectively. Narayanappa has left behind him two sons Channakrishnappa and Sampangiramaiah. the latter being the petitioner and channakrishnappa is alive. The property was never partitioned amongst the joint owners. The respondent herein is the wife of channakrishnappa and she is living separately as she has been deserted by her husband. C. M. Narayanappa had left behind him a widow, daughter and sons who are not parties to this suit. C. M. Narayanappa and Sampangiramaiah filed O. S. 8/1979 for injunction against Venkatamma, estranged wife the present respondent who has been living away from her husband Channakrishnappa for restraining her from interfering with the possession of the land in dispute and the said suit was dismissed. The respondent got the khata of the land changed to her name which was questioned by the petitioner before the assistant Commissioner who set-aside the same and on appeal before the d. C. , the same was confirmed. However, the respondent filed a Writ petition which is pending before this court. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed a suit for bare injunction against the petitioner and obtained exparte order of injunction. Subsequently, the trial Court confirmed that order and the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Hence this petition. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts have committed an error in confirming the temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent restraining joint owners of the property which is not known to the law. He also further submitted that she has no right, title or interest over the property and the documents were produced by the respondent before the trial Court after the arguments concluded by both the parties and when the matter stood posted for orders, which is contrary to the relevant provisions of law. He also submitted that the revenue Courts have decided that the entries made in the revenue records is not in accordance with law. These facts were not taken into consideration by the Courts below. He also submitted that the revenue Courts have decided that the entries made in the revenue records is not in accordance with law. These facts were not taken into consideration by the Courts below. The respondent's husband is still alive and without he being impleaded as one of the party in the suit, the suit itself is not maintainable, etc. ( 3 ) IN reply to this argument, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that under oral partition of 1968, the respondent has been in possession of the property. Her husband has deserted her and the respondent is maintaining her family after constructing some tenements had let out 5 tenements to tenants and was collecting rents and she has been cultivating the agricultural property. She has also installed pipe-lines and electric connection is also taken in her name which substantiates her possession. Thus the possession of the respondent is settled possession. Therefore, she cannot be evicted by anyone without due process of law. He further submitted that the husband has not been looking after her and her children. If the injunction is vacated, she and her children would be thrown to streets which would result in miscarriage of justice and also cause hardship to the entire family. He further submitted that this Court may not interfere with the order under Section 115 CPC as against a concurrent finding given by the Courts below appreciating the factual aspect of the case. Therefore, he submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to Section 115 CPC the High Court may call for record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (A) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. ( 5 ) SO it is for the petitioner to establish any one of the requirements so stipulated under Section 115 CPC warranting the interference of this court in the revision petition and more so in a case where both the Courts have concurrently decided a case against a party. ( 5 ) SO it is for the petitioner to establish any one of the requirements so stipulated under Section 115 CPC warranting the interference of this court in the revision petition and more so in a case where both the Courts have concurrently decided a case against a party. ( 6 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the father-in-law of the responded filed a suit for permanent injunction against this respondent which was dismissed. That otherwise prima facie proved that the respondent has been in possession of the property. In other words, the possession of the respondent is a settled possession. When it is settled possession, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sri N. Umapathy v. B. V. Muniyappa have held that continued possession and enjoyment of plaintiff for years cannot be disturbed and he cannot unlawfully be dispossessed from lands except in accordance with due process of law. Plaintiff is entitled to the protection of his lawful possession by way of adinterim injunction. This High Court in Smt. P. Prabhavathi v. The Divisional Controller, ksrtc, Gulbarga Division and Others while considering Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC held that once the person is found to be in settled possession of the property, he is entitled for an order of temporary injunction to the effect that he shall not be evicted in any manner, otherwise than by due process of law. In Basavaraj Shivaramagouda patil v. Mahesh3 this Court has held that the plaintiff who is in possession of the suit property under the colour of right, even assuming he is in unlawful possession the defendant has no right to take the law into his own hands and dispossess him except in accordance with law, even assuming that the defendant is the true owner of the suit property. Their Lordships of the Supreme court in Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad and others held that it may not be appropriate for any court to hold mini trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction. In Sathyani @ Ramaiah and others v. Karnataka Milk Federation Co-op ltd. , following the judgment rendered in the case of D. Mahabalaraju and Ors. In Sathyani @ Ramaiah and others v. Karnataka Milk Federation Co-op ltd. , following the judgment rendered in the case of D. Mahabalaraju and Ors. v. Jagat and Puran Singh and Others v. The State of Punjab, this Court has held that where a trespasser was in settled pessession of the land, he is not entitled to be evicted except in due course of law and he is further entitled to resist or defend his possession even against the rightful owner who tries to dispossess him. ( 7 ) FROM these decisions it is abundantly clear a trespasser is entitled to resist his possession by filing, a suit even against a true owner and the only remedy available to the true owner is to evict him under due process of law. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel vehemently argued that the respondent being the wife of Channakrishna is in joint possession of the property. Therefore, no injunction could be granted against a joint owner which is the elementary principle of law and the courts below committed an error in granting injunction. In this case the husband and the father-in-law themselves filed a suit against this respondent for injunction and that suit came to be dismissed. Thus, it is clear that they treated her as a stranger and wanted to prevent her from interfering with their alleged possession. Having treated her as a stranger, as such it is not now open to the petitioner to urge that it is not permissible to grant injunction against this petitioner. Therefore, this argument is without any meaning and contrary to his own case. ( 9 ) THE further argument is that the Assistant Commissioner set-aside the order passed by the Tahsildar changing khata to the name of the respondent which was subsequently confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, these documents also go against her case and both the courts have not taken note of this lacuna in the case of the respondent and it ought to have rejected her application. Needless to say that the respondent had filed a Writ Petition and the same is still pending. Therefore, the entries in the revenue records also are in dispute and the petitioner himself was a party to the earlier suit and that suit which was filed for injunction came to be rejected. Needless to say that the respondent had filed a Writ Petition and the same is still pending. Therefore, the entries in the revenue records also are in dispute and the petitioner himself was a party to the earlier suit and that suit which was filed for injunction came to be rejected. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent has been in possession of the property. That being the case and in view of the decisions cited above, it is clear that even a trespasser can protect his/her right against a true owner till he/she is dispossessed by due process of law and the mere entry in the revenue record cannot be acted upon at his stage when the actual physical possession is established by the respondent. In a suit for permanent injunction what is required is continued and settled possession of the property. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondent is the estranged wife of Channakrishnappa who is the son of the petitioner and he has not made any provision for maintenance of this respondent and her children. But respondent claims that his property was given to her. She has to maintain herself and also the children born out of their legal wedlock. She has constructed the tenements and has let them out to tenants and is also cultivating the agricultural property. If she is not protected by the Court, she along with her minor children would be on the streets resulting in irreparable loss, hardship and inconvenience to her. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, viewed from any angle, I have not been persuaded to accept any of the grounds urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to interfere with the concurrent findings. Further, none of the requirements of Section 115 CPC are satisfied. Consequently, I hold that both the courts have rightly applied the principles of law in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff which does not call for interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed directing the petitioner to pay costs of rs. 2,000/- to the respondent. However, it is made clear that any observations made herein shall be confined to this order only and the court below shall proceed to dispose of the suit not being fettered by this order. Revision dismissed. --- *** --- .