Judgment : 1. The 1st defendant before the Trial Court is before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order granting temporary injunction restraining him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff as affirmed by the Appellate Court in M.A. No. 3 of 2009 vide order dated 6-3-2010 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srirangapatna. 2. The suit in O.S. No. 58 of 2008 is filed by the respondent herein praying for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is 8 guntas of land comprising in Survey No. 7/2 situated at Kudalakuppa, Srirangapatna Taluk. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 contending inter alia that the defendants were interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and hence they may be restrained from doing so during the pendency of the suit. 3. The Trial Court, on consideration of the materials on record, has found that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case regarding her actual possession of the property and that the defendants failed to prima facie establish the defence taken by them stating that the suit schedule property belonged to them wherein they had put up a cane crushing/pressing unit. 4. In paragraph 8 of the order, the Trial Court has recorded a prima facie finding that the assertion made by the plaintiff that the said 8 guntas of suit schedule property was granted to her husband by the Government and Saguvali Chit was also issued based on which the revenue records were entered in the name of the grantee are probabilised by the documents produced. To support this prima facie finding, the Trial Court has referred to RTC pertaining to Survey No. 7/2 standing in the name of the plaintiff for the year 2007-08. The Trial Court has also found that plaintiff’s name was got mutated in M.R. No. 13 of 1985-86. It is in this background that the Trial Court has persuaded itself to grant an order of temporary injunction recording a specific that the finding that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience was in her favour and if no injunction, was granted, it would result in irreparable loss and injury to her. It is in this background that the Trial Court has persuaded itself to grant an order of temporary injunction recording a specific that the finding that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience was in her favour and if no injunction, was granted, it would result in irreparable loss and injury to her. This finding of the Trial Court is affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Court. 5. Perusal of the order of the Appellate Court also discloses that the Appellate Court has re-appreciated the matter and has concurred with the prima facie findings as recorded by the Trial Court. 6. Though, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been using a portion of the suit schedule property as a passage to reach his property and therefore at least this right of the defendant may be preserved till the disposal of the suit, I do not find any material in this regard produced before the Court below or any specific defence taken in the written statement. On the other hand, in the written statement the case is one of totally denial and the defendants have set up their own title and possession in the suit schedule property. Hence, there is no substance in this contention. 7. There is no valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.