ORDER : 1. The unsuccessful defendant No. 1 filed the present writ petition against the order dated 16.9.2016 passed in M.A. 63/2014 dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant confirming the order dated 10.6.2014 passed on IA filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed in O.S. No. 110/2013 granting temporary injunction. 2. The 1st respondent, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court filed O.S. 110/2013 for permanent injunction against the petitioner and 2nd respondent, who are defendants for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property, on the basis of the grant certificate and the Will said to have been executed by the mother of the plaintiff and also on the basis of RTC extract, tax paid receipt, mutation and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The same was resisted by the 1st defendant by filing written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff’s mother Parvathamma executed a sale deed in favour of Mallanna on 21.10.1974 and the said Mallanna permitted the 1st defendant to cultivate the land and defendant is in possession of the same and seeks for dismissal of the Suit. 3. Plaintiff also filed IA under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction reiterating the averments made in the plaint. The same was opposed by 1st defendant by filing objections. The trial Court considering the application and objections, by the impugned order dated 10.6.2014 granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and alienating the suit schedule property in any manner till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial Court, the present petitioner filed appeal in M.A. No. 63/2014 before the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Court at Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur. The appellate Court after hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated 16.9.2016 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. Sri Srinivasa, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Courts below granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. Sri Srinivasa, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Courts below granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that one Mallanna is the absolute owner and is in peaceful possession of the property, who purchased the same from Smt. Parvathamma, mother of the plaintiff under sale deed dated 21.10.1974. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim a right and title over the suit schedule property. Both the Courts below have ignored the registered sale deed and on the basis of the sale deed. Mallanna permitted the defendant to cultivate the suit schedule property. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the Court below by allowing the present writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 110/2013 for permanent injunction contending that she is the owner of the suit schedule property, by virtue of the grant made in favour by her mother Smt. Parvathamma and thereafter, Parvathamma executed a Will dated 10.4.1972 in favour of the plaintiff and her sister Sarvamangalamma. After the death of said Parvathamma, all the revenue records were entered in the name of the plaintiff and she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the Suit. Same is disputed by the defendant contending that Mallanna is in possession of the property. 7. The trial Court considering the application and objections has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case that she is in possession of the property and balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff would be put to hardship and irreparable loss if injunction is not granted and also recorded a finding that the Xerox copy of the grant certificate shows that suit schedule property was granted in the name of the mother of the plaintiff Parvathamma. Xerox copy of the Will executed by the Parvathamma in favour of plaintiff, in respect of suit schedule property, is produced. The RTC extracts, tax paid receipt, mutation extracts show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. Xerox copy of the Will executed by the Parvathamma in favour of plaintiff, in respect of suit schedule property, is produced. The RTC extracts, tax paid receipt, mutation extracts show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. The trial Court also recorded a finding that Xerox copy of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur in R.A. No. 53/2011-12 dated 29.08.2012 is also produced which shows that the name of purchaser has not been entered in the revenue records. 8. The defendant except contending that the suit schedule property belongs to Mallanna and the first defendant is cultivating the suit schedule property on contract under said Mallanna, the defendants have not produced any documents to show the same. Therefore, the plaintiff has proved her lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. Accordingly, injunction was granted on 10.06.2014. The lower appellate Court after re-appreciating the entire material on record, concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, has further recorded a finding that on perusal of the documents produced by the defendant it reveals that after getting the sale deed, the name of purchaser has not been entered in the revenue records. The purchaser, from the date of purchase till this day, has not made any efforts to establish his right, title and interest over the purchased property. The appeal filed by the purchaser before the Assistant Commissioner came to be dismissed and purchaser has not exercised his right, title or interest over the suit schedule property for more than 35 years. On considering the documents, it reveals that though defendant purchased the suit land but has not taken possession of the same. The material documents produced clearly indicates that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. Therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed. 9. Sri. Srinivasa, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that Mallanna also filed Suit in O.S. No. 38/2013 against the plaintiff for declaration and injunction against the plaintiff. Said suit is still pending for adjudication. He fairly submits that application filed also pending for grant of interim order before the trial Court. The said submission is placed on record. 10. Sri. Srinivasa, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that Mallanna also filed Suit in O.S. No. 38/2013 against the plaintiff for declaration and injunction against the plaintiff. Said suit is still pending for adjudication. He fairly submits that application filed also pending for grant of interim order before the trial Court. The said submission is placed on record. 10. Admittedly in the present suit, the suit filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the grant and Will and on the basis of the RTC and other documents, for permanent injunction, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and first defendant has not produced any material documents to disprove the same, except relying upon the sale deed in favour of Mallanna in the year 1974. Both the Courts have concurrently that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Such a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below based on the material evidence cannot be interfered under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.