JUDGMENT ( 1. ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 793/2004, on the file of XXX Additional City Civil Court at Bangalore, have filed this appeal against the orders passed on LA No. 10 dated 19. 7. 2008. ( 2. ) THERE are concluded incidental proceedings between parties to suit in respect of suit 'a' and 'b' schedule properties. Therefore, in this appeal, parties would be referred to by their names. The II-defendant namely Manjunath D. Patil and plaintiff namely somashekar D. Patil are the sons of I-defendant namely D.S. Patil. Somashekar D. Patil has filed the present suit against D.S. Patil and manjunath D. Patil for partition and separate possession of his l/3rd share in suit 'a', 'b', 'c and 'd' schedule properties. 'a' schedule property is a residential house situate at No. 18, 4th Cross, Central Excise Layout, vijayanagar, Bangalore. 'b' schedule property is an industrial shed bearing no. 32/25, situate at 2nd Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, bangalore - 10, wherein D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil are running a printing press in the name and style of 'lotus Printers'. In 'c schedule property, Somashekar D. Patil has mentioned five sites situate in different localities which are bereft of other details. 'd' schedule properties are moveable properties stated to be existent in plaint 'a' schedule property. D.S. Patil had filed O.S. No. 6826/2003 for a decree of permanent injunction against Somashekar D. Patil in respect of 'b' schedule property. The suit was contested by Somashekar D. Patil on the ground that plaint 'b' schedule property is a joint family property and he is one of the co owners of 'b' schedule property and he has undivided share in the same. The suit in O.S. No. 6826/2003 was decreed on 6. 12. 2006 and permanent injunction was granted to restrain Somashekar D. Patil from interfering with D.S. Patil's possession of 'b' schedule property. ( 3. ) AFTER institution of the present suit, Somashekar D. Patil had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to restrain D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from alienating suit schedule properties. The trial court by order dated 16.4.2004, dismissed the application. ( 4. ( 3. ) AFTER institution of the present suit, Somashekar D. Patil had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to restrain D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from alienating suit schedule properties. The trial court by order dated 16.4.2004, dismissed the application. ( 4. ) D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil had made an application under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim mandatory injunction for removal of Somashekar D. Patil from possession of 'a' schedule property and restoration of status quo ante as it existed prior to 28.3.2007, inter alia contending:- On 28. 3. 2007, Somashekar D. Patil had forcibly dispossessed D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from 'a' schedule property and Somashekar D. Patil has been in wrongful possession of 'a' schedule property, Somashekar d. Patil had taken law into his hands to achieve this unlawful object. Therefore, D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil had sought for removal of somashekar D. Patil from possession of 'a' schedule property and restore possession of 'a' schedule property to D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil. This application was contested by Somashekar D. Patil on the ground that he being one of the co-owners has been in lawful possession of 'a' schedule property D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil have invented story of forcible dispossession to dispossess Somashekar D. Patil from 'a' schedule property. The trial Court by order dated 26. 6. 2007, dismissed the application, against said order, D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil were before this Court in MFA No. 8718/2007. This Court by judgment dated 29. 5. 2008 remanded the matter to trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law by taking note of all relevant material on record. The trial Court reheard the matter and dismissed the application by order dated 19. 7. 2008. Therefore, D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil are before this Court. I have heard Sri S. Vijay Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for appellants and Sri H. M. Mariyappa, learned Counsel for respondent. ( 5. ) SRI S. Vijay Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for appellants has made following submissions :- I. That the material on record, in particular, judgment in O.S. No. 8658/2003, orders passed on IA Nos. I and II dated 16. 10. ( 5. ) SRI S. Vijay Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for appellants has made following submissions :- I. That the material on record, in particular, judgment in O.S. No. 8658/2003, orders passed on IA Nos. I and II dated 16. 10. 2004 in the present suit, the evidence by way of affidavit of Somashekar D. Patil in O.S. No. 8658/2003 would clearly establish that Somashekar D. Patil was not in possession of 'a' schedule property on the date of institution of suit. II. The decree made in O.S. No. 8658/2003, has attained finality as the same was not challenged by Somashekar d. Patil. III. The order passed by trial Court on I. As. I and II was confirmed by this Court in MFA No. 8200/2004 dated 2. 6. 2006. Somashekar D. Patil has dispossessed D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from 'a' Schedule property by resorting to unlawful means and D.S. Patil and manjunath D. Patil cannot be driven to a separate suit for repossession of 'a' schedule property. This Court has been vested with powers to grant relief of interlocutory injunction or restore status quo ante of the last non contested status, which preceded pending controversy until final hearing when full relief may be granted. IV. Somashekar D. Patil had taken law into his hands to dispossess D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from 'a' schedule property during pendency of suit. Therefore, court has power to restore possession of 'a' schedule property to D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil. V. The trial Court was not justified in ignoring factual recitals and observations recorded in judgment of O.S. No. 8658/ 2003 as also in the order passed by the trial Court on IAs i and II dated 16. 10. 2004, wherein it is held that somashekar D. Patil was not in possession of 'a' schedule property on the date of institution of present suit. VI. The evidence by way of affidavit filed by Somashekar d. Patil in O.S. No. 8658/2003 provides clinching proof of the fact that he was not in possession of 'a' schedule property on the date of institution of present suit. VII. VI. The evidence by way of affidavit filed by Somashekar d. Patil in O.S. No. 8658/2003 provides clinching proof of the fact that he was not in possession of 'a' schedule property on the date of institution of present suit. VII. The suit summons and notices in O.S. No. 8658/2003, issued at a point of time when there was no dispute between parties in respect of 'a' schedule property would clearly establish that Somashekar D. Patil was residing in house bearing No. 3/1, 9th Main, Agrahara Dasarahalli, bangalore. VIII. The aforestated documents would clearly establish that on 28. 3. 2007 Somashekar D. Patil had dispossessed his father D.S. Patil ad brother-Manjunath D. Patil from 'a' schedule property. IX. The learned trial Judge has not given due weightage to factual recitals and observations recorded in Judgment of O.S. No. 8658/2003 as also orders passed on I. As. I and II in the present case. X. Somashekar D. Patil has not placed any material to show his lawful entry to 'a' schedule property during pendency of suit. Therefore, D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil are entitled to an ad interim mandatory injunction to remove somashekar D. Patil, his heirs or, any body claiming through him from 'a' Schedule property and for restoration of status quo ante as existed prior to 28. 3. 2007. ( 6. ) THE learned Counsel for respondent has made following submissions:- I. D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil are bent upon dispossessing Somashekar D. Patil from 'a' schedule property. II. During pendency of suit, D.S. Patil had executed a registered gift deed in favour of Manjunath D. Patil and there was transfer of property to third parties through registered sale deed executed by Manjunath D. Patil. As manjunath D. Patil was not in possession of 'a' Schedule property, he could not deliver possession of 'a' Schedule property to his transferees. The transferees rescinded from the transaction and registered sale deed executed by manjunath D. Patil was cancelled. The suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Somashekar D. Patil being a co-owner of suit schedule properties is entitled to l/3rd share and he has fair chances of success in the suit. III. There is no material on record to establish the alleged dispossession of D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil by somashekar D. Patil on 28. 3. The suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Somashekar D. Patil being a co-owner of suit schedule properties is entitled to l/3rd share and he has fair chances of success in the suit. III. There is no material on record to establish the alleged dispossession of D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil by somashekar D. Patil on 28. 3. 2007 D.S. Patil and manjunath D. Patil are trying to oust Somashekar D. Patil from 'a' Schedule property by inventing story of forcible dispossession. IV. Manjunath D. Patil had filed O.S. No. 17617/2005, against somashekar D. Patil, for a decree of permanent injunction in respect of 'a' schedule property. In the plaint filed in O.S. No. 17617/2005, it is alleged on 8. 11. 2005, somashekar D. Patil and his wife Smt. Sudha Patil illegally trespassed 'a' schedule property wherein D.S. Patil and manjunath D. Patil and their family members were residing. Somashekar D. Patil did not heed to the advice of D.S. Patil. On the other hand, Somashekar D. Patil had held out threats to the life of Manjunath D. Patil. In view of categorical averments made in plaint filed in O.S. No. 17617/2005, forcible dispossession alleged in the application is a clear invention to harass Somashekar d. Patil. V. Somashekar D. Patil has made available number of documents to establish his prima facie possession of 'a' schedule property, in any event he being one of the co-owners of 'a' schedule property, is entitled to remain in possession of 'a' schedule property pending disposal of suit. VI. D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil cannot maintain an application for grant of ad interim mandatory injunction when they have not filed a counterclaim. It is hardly possible to hold averments made in the plaint would provide a cause of action for D.S. Patil and Manjunath d. Patil to file an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC for the relief of ad interim mandatory injunction for removal of Somashekar D. Patil from 'a' Schedule property. VII. Manjunath D. Patil has been initiating spate of litigations (both civil and criminal) against Somashekar D. Patil to harass and bring him to terms. VIII. The learned trial Judge on consideration of material on record has rightly rejected the application. The impugned order is neither perverse nor capricious to call for interference by this Court. VII. Manjunath D. Patil has been initiating spate of litigations (both civil and criminal) against Somashekar D. Patil to harass and bring him to terms. VIII. The learned trial Judge on consideration of material on record has rightly rejected the application. The impugned order is neither perverse nor capricious to call for interference by this Court. Having heard the learned Counsels for parties and having regard to contentions raised by parties before trial Court and reiterated before this Court, I formulate following points for determination:- 1. Whether D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil can maintain an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim mandatory injunction in the suit filed for partition by Somashekar D. Patil? 2. Whether D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil have placed prima facie material to establish that Somashekar D. Patil wrongfully entered 'a' schedule property on 28. 3. 2007 and forcibly dispossessed them from 'a' schedule property and somashekar D. Patil has been in wrongful possession of 'a' Schedule property? 3. Whether D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil are entitled to an order of ad interim mandatory injunction for removal of Somashekar D. Patil, his heirs and any body claiming through him from 'a' schedule property and for restoration of status quo ante as it existed prior to 28. 3. 2007? 4. Whether impugned order calls for interference? If so, what order?" Regarding Point No. 1: ( 7. ) THE learned trial Judge has held;- without filing a counter claim, D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil cannot maintain an application under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC; the facts stated in the application have no relevance to plaint averments; the averments of plaint do not provide cause of action to D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil to maintain an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. In my considered opinion, this point does not survive for consideration in view of the judgment passed by this Court in MFA No. 8718/2007 dated 29. 5. 2008, wherein this Court has directed the trial Court to reconsider the application by taking note of all the relevant material on record in accordance with law. In my considered opinion, this point does not survive for consideration in view of the judgment passed by this Court in MFA No. 8718/2007 dated 29. 5. 2008, wherein this Court has directed the trial Court to reconsider the application by taking note of all the relevant material on record in accordance with law. Even otherwise, Somashekar D. Patil has instituted present suit for partition and separate possession of 'a' schedule property amongst other properties described in the schedule, inter alia contending schedule properties are joint family properties and he is entitled to l/3rd share in schedule properties. Somashekar D. Patil has asserted his right to be in possession of 'a' schedule property as one of the co-owners. The averments of plaint have direct bearing on possession of 'a' schedule property as on the date of suit and thereafter. If there is change in the nature of possession of 'a' schedule property during pendency of suit either by an order of the Court or by the act of parties, the party aggrieved by such change has a right to maintain an application for re-possession or restoration of status quo ante of the last non contested status. Therefore, submission of learned Counsel for Somashekar D. Patil that LA. 10 is not maintainable cannot be accepted. In view of the foregoing discussion, I answer point No. 1 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No. 2: ( 8. ) IN MFA No. 8718/2007 dated 29. 5. 2008, this Court has held that the trial Court ought to have considered findings recorded in O.S. No. 793/ 2004 as also observations made in the present suit, order passed on I. As. I and II. This Court remanded the matter to trial Court for reconsideration of application by taking note of all the relevant material on record in accordance with law. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that D.S. Patil had filed O.S. No. 8658/2003 for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain somashekar D. Patil from interfering with D.S. Patil's possession of industrial shed situate at No. 32/25, 2nd Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, bangalore-10 ('b' schedule property in the present suit). The suit was contested by Somashekar D. Patil on various grounds. The suit was contested by Somashekar D. Patil on various grounds. Somashekar D. Patil had taken up a specific contention that he is in possession of residential house ('a' schedule property in the present suit) along with D.S. Patil and manjunath D. Patil. It was contended by D.S. Patil that Somashekar D. Patil after executing relinquishment deed got released from M/s. Lotus Printers, started an independent printing press. The Court on consideration of pleadings and evidence has recorded a finding that Somashekar D. Patil was not residing in the ground floor of 'a' Schedule property. There is a clear finding that Somashekar D. Patil has been residing in No. 3/1, 6th Cross, 9th Main, Agrahara Dasarahalli, magadi Road, Bangalore. The decree in O.S. No. 8658/2003 was not challenged by Somashekar D. Patil and thus attained finality. ( 9. ) THE learned Counsel for Somashekar D. Patil would submit O.S. No. 8658/2003 was filed by D.S. Patil for grant of permanent injunction against Somashekar D. Patil in respect of an industrial shed situate at no. 32/25, 2nd Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10 ('b' schedule property in the present suit). Therefore, the question as to whether somashekar D. Patil was in possession of residential house bearing No. 18, 4th Cross, 8th Main Road, Central Excise Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore -560 040 ('a' schedule property in the present suit) was not a fact in issue in O.S. No. 8658/2003. Such an issue was neither raised nor decided. Therefore, any incidental finding/observation recorded in the judgment of O.S. No. 8658/2003 is not relevant for consideration of present application. ( 10. ) IN order to appreciate the tenability or otherwise of the submission, it is necessary to refer to a decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 350 (in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Admane Anita Moti and others), wherein Supreme Court has held:- "the factual recitals or observations made in a judgment or order are taken to be correct unless rebutted. " Therefore, submission of learned Counsel for Somashekar D. Patil that factual recitals or observations made in O.S. No. 8658/2003 are not relevant for consideration of present application cannot be accepted. Such factual recitals or observations are taken to be correct unless rebutted. ( 11. " Therefore, submission of learned Counsel for Somashekar D. Patil that factual recitals or observations made in O.S. No. 8658/2003 are not relevant for consideration of present application cannot be accepted. Such factual recitals or observations are taken to be correct unless rebutted. ( 11. ) AFTER institution of present suit, Somashekar D. Patil had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain D.S. Patil and manjunath D. Patil from alienating 'a' schedule property. The trial Court by order dated 16. 10. 2004, rejected the application. The trial Court while dismissing the application has recorded a finding that Somashekar D. Patil is not residing in plaint 'a' schedule property. The trial Court has held that Somashekar D. Patil is guilty of suppression of facts and he has deliberately given wrong address to make it appear that he is in possession of plaint 'a' schedule property. Against the order dated 16. 10. 2004, somashekar D. Patil had filed MFA No. 8200/2004, which was dismissed by this Court on 2. 6. 2006. ( 12. ) THE learned Counsel for Somashekar D. Patil, would submit I. As. I and II were filed for grant of temporary injunction to restrain D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from alienating suit schedule properties pending disposal of suit. Possession of 'a' schedule property by either party was not relevant for consideration of I. As. I and II. This submission cannot be accepted for the following reasons :-Somashekar D. Patil had sought for an order of temporary injunction to restrain D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from alienating 'a' Schedule property, inter alia contending that suit schedule properties are joint family properties, the trial Court had to incidentally consider this matter. The trial Court on consideration of material on record has held Somashekar d. Patil has given wrong address to make it appear that he has been residing in 'a' Schedule property. The trial Court has held Somashekar d. Patil is not residing in the ground floor of plaint 'a' schedule property. The trial Court has recorded a finding that Somashekar D. Patil is guilty of suppression of facts. This is one of the grounds for rejection of I. As. I and ii. Therefore, it cannot be said that observations made by the trial Court in the orders passed on LA. I and II are not relevant for consideration of the present application. This is one of the grounds for rejection of I. As. I and ii. Therefore, it cannot be said that observations made by the trial Court in the orders passed on LA. I and II are not relevant for consideration of the present application. It cannot be said that observations made by the trial Court on the orders made on I. As. I and II have no bearing on possession of 'a' Schedule property as on the date of suit. The learned Senior Counsel for appellants has made available copy of evidence by way of affidavit of Somashekar D. Patil filed in O.S. No. 8658/2003. This evidence-affidavit was filed by Somashekar D. Patil on 1. 8. 2006. In this evidence-affidavit, Somashekar D. Patil has stated he has been residing at No. 3/1, 6th Cross, 9th Main, Agrahara Dasarahalli, magadi Road, Bangalore. In paragraph 7 of the evidence-affidavit, somashekar D. Patil has stated that his father D.S. Patil asked him to go out of plaint 'a' schedule property. Somashekar D. Patil adhering to the dictates of his father D.S. Patil, took up a separate residence and his father taking advantage of the same, filed O.S. No. 8658/2003 for a decree of permanent injunction, in respect of plaint 'b' Schedule property. During cross-examination, Somashekar D. Patil admitted that he is in possession of documents to show that he is residing in 'a' schedule property. Somashekar D. Patil has stated that he had given those documents to his advocate. During cross-examination, Somashekar D. Patil has admitted that he has shown his address as No. 3/1, 6th Cross, 9th Main, Agrahara dasarahalli, Magadi Road, Bangalore. In the affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief he has stated that he is not residing in that address. The deposition of Somashekar D. Patil by way of affidavit filed in O.S. No. 8658/2003 would prima facie establish that as on 1. 8. 2006, somashekar D. Patil was not in possession of ground floor of plaint 'a' schedule property. On the other hand, Somashekar D. Patil was residing at No. 3/1, 6th Cross, 9th Main, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Magadi Road, bangalore. Somashekar D. Patil has not placed any material to rebut the factual recitals and findings recorded in the judgment of O.S. No. 8658/ 2003 as also in the orders made on IA I and LA II dated 16. 10. 2004. Somashekar D. Patil has not placed any material to rebut the factual recitals and findings recorded in the judgment of O.S. No. 8658/ 2003 as also in the orders made on IA I and LA II dated 16. 10. 2004. Somashekar D. Patil has not placed any material to show that he had lawfully entered and occupied 'a' schedule property prior to institution of suit. There is no material to contradict his wrongful occupation of 'a' schedule property on 28. 3. 2007. Somashekar D. Patil has not placed any material to show that evidence by way of affidavit filed in O.S. No. 8658/ 2003 is a statement of mistaken or erroneous facts. The order passed by trial Court on IAs I and II has attained finality and bind the parties during pendency of suit. The principles of res judicata are applicable to the interim orders passed on contested applications by the Court during pendency of suit. Therefore, D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil have prima facie established that on 28. 3. 2007, Somashekar D. Patil had trespassed into 'a' schedule property and dispossessed them 'a' Schedule property. ( 13. ) AT this juncture, it is relevant to state that in notices and summons issued in O.S. No. 8658/2003 the address of Somashekar D. Patil is shown as No. 3/1, 6th Cross, 9th Main, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Magadi Road, bangalore. These summons was issued to Somashekar D. Patil in O.S. No. 8658/2003 at a point of time when there was no dispute between parties regarding possession of 'a' schedule property. ( 14. ) IN view of the above discussion, I accept the contention of D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil that on 28. 3. 2007 Somashekar D. Patil trespassed into 'a' schedule property and dispossessed them from 'a' schedule property. The learned Counsel for Somashekar D. Patil has submitted that D.S. Patil had executed a registered gift deed dated 30. 6. 2004 in favour of manjunath D. Patil. On the basis of such gift deed, Manjunath D. Patil had sold 'a' schedule property to third parties under registered documents. Somashekar D. Patil was in possession of ground floor of 'a' schedule property. Therefore, Manjunath D. Patil could not deliver possession of 'a' schedule property to his vendees. This would clearly belie the story of forcible dispossession set out in the application. ( 15. Somashekar D. Patil was in possession of ground floor of 'a' schedule property. Therefore, Manjunath D. Patil could not deliver possession of 'a' schedule property to his vendees. This would clearly belie the story of forcible dispossession set out in the application. ( 15. ) THE effect of transfer under gift deed is dependent on decision of main issue involved in the suit as to whether suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of D.S. Patil or joint family properties, as contended by Somashekar D. Patil. Therefore, gift deed executed by D.S. Patil in favour of Manjunath D. Patil and subsequent transfer of 'a' schedule property by Manjunath D. Patil through registered sale deed and cancellation of registered sale deed by his transferees would prima facie establish that Somashekar D. Patil wrongfully entered into 'a' schedule property, forcibly dispossessed D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from 'a' schedule property. Therefore, I answer point No. 2 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No. 3 : ( 16. ) FROM the findings recorded on points 1 and 2, it is clear that somashekar D. Patil has wrongfully taken possession of 'a' schedule property and dispossessed D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from 'a' schedule property. In a decision reported in (1990) 2 SCC 117 , (in the case of Dorab cawasji Warden Vs. Coomisorab Warden and Others), the Supreme Court has held:- "16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, Courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. " ( 17. ) IN a decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 791 (in the case of Tanusree basu and Others Vs. Ishani Prasad Basu and Others), the Supreme Court has held: "if a party takes recourse to any contrivance to dispossess another, during pendency of the suit either in violation of the order of injunction or otherwise; the Court indisputably will have jurisdiction to restore the parties back to the same position. It is not the law that a party to a suit during pendency thereof shall take law into his hands and dispossess the other co-sharer. It is now a well-settled principle of law that Order 39, Rule 1 CPC is not the sole repository of the power of the Court to grant injunction. Section 151 CPC confers power upon the Court to grant injunction if the matter is not covered by Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. If a person is entitled to a prohibitory injunction, a fortiori he shall also be entitled to a mandatory injunction. 23. It is not the law that a party to a suit during pendency thereof shall take law into his hands and dispossess the other co-sharer. If a party takes recourse to any contrivance to dispossess another, during pendency of the suit either in violation of the order of injunction or otherwise, the Court indisputably will have jurisdiction to restore the parties back to the same position. " ( 18. ) THE learned Counsel for Somashekar D. Patil would submit even if alleged dispossession of D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil on 28. 3. 2007 is accepted, Somashekar D. Patil being one of the co-owners is entitled to remain in possession of 'a' schedule property. The remedy available to D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil is to file a suit for recovery of possession of plaint 'a' schedule property. Therefore, the extraordinary relief of ad interim mandatory injunction to remove Somashekar D. Patil from 'a' schedule property cannot be granted. The remedy available to D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil is to file a suit for recovery of possession of plaint 'a' schedule property. Therefore, the extraordinary relief of ad interim mandatory injunction to remove Somashekar D. Patil from 'a' schedule property cannot be granted. While answering point No. 2, I have held Somashekar D. Patil was not in possession of 'a' schedule property as on the date of institution of suit or during pendency of suit till 28. 3. 2007. On the other hand, observations/findings made in O.S. No. 6853/2003 and also orders passed by the trial Court on IAs I and II would support the case of D.S. Patil and manjunath D. Patil that Somashekar D. Patil had taken law into his hands and forcibly dispossessed them from 'a' schedule property. Therefore, contention of the learned Counsel that Somashekar D. Patil being a co-owner of 'a' schedule property has a right to remain in possession of plaint 'a' schedule property cannot be accepted. The law is against parties, who take law into their hands during pendency of suit to dispossess other co-sharers. The dispossessed co-sharers need not be driven to a separate suit for recovery of possession. ( 19. ) IN a decision reported in AIR 1986 Kar. 194 (in the case of M/s. Patil Exhibitors (Private) Limited Vs. The Corporation of the City of bangalore), this Court has held:- "the protection that the Court affords is not of the possession which in the circumstances is litigious possession and cannot be equated with lawful possession but a protection against forcible dispossession. The basis of relief is a corollary of the principle that even with the best of title there can be no forcible dispossession. " therefore, in view of what has been held by this Court, it is clear that even with the best of title, a party cannot take law into his own hands to dispossess the other party. In the case on hand, Somashekar D. Patil is yet to prove that 'a' schedule property is a joint family property and he has undivided l/3 rd share in the same. In the case on hand, Somashekar D. Patil is yet to prove that 'a' schedule property is a joint family property and he has undivided l/3 rd share in the same. Even if it is assumed that he has fair chances of succeeding in the suit, that would not give him a right to take law into his hands to forcibly dispossess D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil from possession of 'a' schedule property and forcibly occupy 'a' schedule property during pendency of the suit, more particularly when the factual recitals/ observations recorded in O.S. No. 8658/2003 and also in orders made on ia I and LA II would negate his possession of 'a' schedule property as on the date of institution of present suit. ( 20. ) THE learned Counsel for Somashekar D. Patil has contended that trial of the suit is at the concluding stage and this Court in MFA No. 8718/ 2007 dated 29. 5. 2008, has directed the trial Court to dispose of the case within six months from 29. 5. 2008. Therefore, there is no need to pass interlocutory order of mandatory injunction for removal of Somashekar d. Patil from 'a' schedule property lest it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. This submission cannot be accepted for more than one reason:-D. S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil have been pursuing this application from April 2007. At the first instance, trial Court dismissed the application by order dated 26. 6. 2007. This order was challenged before this Court in mfa No. 8718/2007. This Court by order dated 29. 5. 2008, directed the trial Court to reconsider the application in accordance with law by taking note of all the relevant material on record, within three months from 29. 5. 2008. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge by order dated 19. 7. 2008, dismissed the application. Therefore, this is not a situation of forcibly dispossessed party approaching the Court at a belated stage. Even otherwise, in view of specific directions given by this Court in MFA No. 8718/2007, the submission of the learned Counsel for Somashekar D. Patil that at the stage of conclusion of trial, there is no need to grant extraordinary relief of ad interim mandatory injunction to remove somashekar D. Patil from possession of 'a' schedule property cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, in view of specific directions given by this Court in MFA No. 8718/2007, the submission of the learned Counsel for Somashekar D. Patil that at the stage of conclusion of trial, there is no need to grant extraordinary relief of ad interim mandatory injunction to remove somashekar D. Patil from possession of 'a' schedule property cannot be accepted. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons stated hereinbefore, I hold that D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil are entitled to mandatory injunction for removal of Somashekar D. Patil or his heirs or any body claiming through him from 'a' Schedule property and restoration of status quo ante as it exited prior to 28. 3. 2007. Such a relief is necessary as D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil have been dispossessed by Somashekar d. Patil in the manner opposed to law. ( 21. ) IN a decision reported in AIR 1986 Kant. 194 (in the case of M/s. Patil Exhibitors (Private) Limited Vs. The Corporation of the City of bangalore), this Court has held:- "the protection that the Court affords is not of the possession which in the circumstances is litigious possession and cannot be equated with lawful possession but a protection against forcible dispossession. The basis of relief is a corollary of the principle that even with the best of title there can be no forcible dispossession. " In the case on hand, even if Somashekar D. Patil were to succeed in the suit, both D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil would be entitled to their respective shares. In the circumstances, Somashekar D. Patil, who is yet to prove that 'a' schedule property is a joint family property and he is a co-owner of the same, had no right to resort to forcible dispossession. ( 22. ) THE learned trial Judge without referring to factual recitals and findings recorded in the judgment of O.S. No. 8658/2003 as also in the orders passed on LAs. I and II dated 16. 10. 2004 has found fault with D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil for not filing counterclaim. The learned trial Judge has not considered the settled position of law that a party to a suit during pendency there of shall not take law into his hands to dispossess the other co-sharers. Therefore, the impugned order is perverse and capricious and calls for interference. The learned trial Judge has not considered the settled position of law that a party to a suit during pendency there of shall not take law into his hands to dispossess the other co-sharers. Therefore, the impugned order is perverse and capricious and calls for interference. Accordingly, I answer points 3 and 4 in affirmative. In the result, I pass the following: -ORDER the appeal is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by D.S. Patil and Manjunath D. Patil (defendants I and II) is allowed by granting an order of ad interim mandatory injunction for removal of somashekar D. Patil from possession of plaint 'a' schedule property and restoration of status quo ante as existed prior to 28. 3. 2007.