JUDGMENT : B.S. Patil, J. - This appeal is filed against the order dated 22-1-2015 passed by the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, allowing I.A. No. 1 filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 thereby granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of respondent herein restraining the appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 2. Suit schedule property is a site bearing No. 82 formed in Survey No. 107/1A1 situated at Malathahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North, Taluk, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet with construction thereon. 3. Case of the plaintiff is that she purchased the suit schedule site bearing No. 82 under a registered sale deed dated 8-9-2006. Her name came to be mutated in the records. After the area was included in the CMC Pattanagere, she had paid betterment charges. Subsequently, area where the property is located came to be included within the limits of BBMP where upon she got the khatha changed to her name and paid taxes. She further contended that electricity connection was secured to the premises of the property and thus, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. 4. It was alleged that defendant, based on the sale deed dated 4-12-2012 stated to have been executed jointly by the wife and children of one Sri Hanumappa and one Sri Mallaiah, Smt. Radhamma and her sons along with Smt. Gurushanthama, w/o Sri Gangappa tried to interfere with peaceful possession of plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff was constrained to file a police complaint. 5. It is urged that vendor of plaintiff-Sri Gangappa was the owner of land in whose favour the land was ordered to be restored; he had executed a registered General Power of Attorney on 26-10-1991 in favour of one Sri M.S. Kishore Babu and the said M.S. Kishore Babu had formed layout of sites in the land in question and thereafter, several sites had been sold in favour of purchasers including the plaintiff's vendor. It is urged that the Sri Kishore Babu had formed 249 sites in the land in question and sold them to different persons from 1991 onwards. It is urged that the Sri Kishore Babu had formed 249 sites in the land in question and sold them to different persons from 1991 onwards. It is also contended by the plaintiff that O.S. No. 967 of 2003 had been filed by the vendors of the appellant herein (Mallaiah, Gurushanthamma and others) seeking relief of declaration and for injunction in respect of the very same property comprised in Survey No. 107/1 A1. The said suit was filed against some of the site owners purchased through the General Power of Attorney holder of Sri Gangappa. An application had been filed in the said suit seeking grant of temporary injunction restraining the site owners from putting up any construction over the said property. The said application was rejected on 9-6-2003. An appeal was preferred against the said order in MFA No. 4177 of 2003. In the meanwhile, as the land in question was acquired for the benefit of Bangalore Development Authority, the appeal was disposed of on 9-7-2003. Subsequently, acquisition proceedings was not proceeded with for the sites in question as is evident from the notification dated 8-4-2003, as per the request made by the site owners. 6. It is alleged that acquisition was continued only against other lands not including the land in which Sri Gangappa through his Power of Attorney had formed sites and had disposed of the same. The purchasers, therefore, had filed a memo in the suit O.S. No. 967 of 2003 (filed by the vendors of the present appellant) stating that the dispute had been settled between the parties and suit may be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 19-1-2005. 7. The claim of the defendant is that he has purchased the property from the legal representatives of original grantee Sri Mylaraiah vide registered sale deed dated 4-12-2012. He also claims that his name has been recorded by way of mutation and that he has been in possession of the site. 8. The defendant has contended that original grantee died without issues. One Sri Hanumappa was the brother of Sri Mylaraiah; after his death his son Sri Gangappa along with other legal representatives succeeded to the land granted in favour of original grantee. 8. The defendant has contended that original grantee died without issues. One Sri Hanumappa was the brother of Sri Mylaraiah; after his death his son Sri Gangappa along with other legal representatives succeeded to the land granted in favour of original grantee. Though Sri Gangappa alone applied for resumption and restoration of land and the order was passed in his favour other legal representatives were also entitled for share in the property. It is further contended by the defendant that Sri Gangappa never came in possession of the property, therefore, there was no occasion for him to part with the possession in favour of the General Power of Attorney holder Sri Kishore Babu. Hence, the assertions made in the plaint that said Sri Kishore Babu formed sites and sold the same to others including the respondent herein could not be believed. He, therefore, objected for grant of temporary injunction as prayed for. 9. Trial Court on consideration of entire materials on record and having dealt with the respective plea taken, has come to the conclusion that plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case regarding the actual possession of the property, particularly because of the checkered history the case had and also because the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff was in the year 2006, whereas the sale deed under which the defendant claims title and possession of the property was executed on 4-12-2012. The Trial Court has also held that documents produced by the plaintiff showed that suit schedule property had been purchased by him from Sri M.S. Kishore Babu through the General Power of Attorney holder and that there were materials to show that said Sri Kishore Babu had developed sites in the suit schedule property and the encumbrance certificate produced by the plaintiff disclosed registration of a sale deed in favour of plaintiff on 8-9-2006. It has been also found that documents produced by plaintiff disclosed that she had obtained electricity connection to the property and was in possession of the same. Hence, as per the Court below, it was a case for grant of temporary injunction to protect plaintiff's possession against the defendant. 10. The above reasons assigned by the Court below cannot be characterised as perverse or illegal. Hence, as per the Court below, it was a case for grant of temporary injunction to protect plaintiff's possession against the defendant. 10. The above reasons assigned by the Court below cannot be characterised as perverse or illegal. On reappreciation of materials on record it is clear that the conclusion reached by the Court below is based on documents and the prima facie case made out by the plaintiff. It is relevant to notice here that defendant claims to have filed one more suit in O.S. No. 7514 of 2014 claiming relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the very same property. The plaintiff has entered caveat in the said suit and the subject-matter is pending consideration. The apprehension of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that taking advantage of the interim order passed in this case plaintiff may proceed with construction in the suit schedule property without taking any sanctioned plan. It is unnecessary to go into this aspect of the matter, as this Court is not concerned with the development or construction to be put up over the property in question. 11. Temporary injunction sought is only with regard to peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff. If at all, the defendant has got any right over the property, as he has filed another suit, it is open for him to seek appropriate relief there. Hence, it is not necessary to dilute into matters sought to be advanced by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.