JUDGMENT : The plaintiff filed the present Miscellaneous First Appeal against the order dated 03.12.2016 rejecting interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in O.S.NO.9014/2015. 2. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit schedule property belongs to his father. After his death, revenue records were standing in the name of the plaintiff. Defendants or any other person have no right in the suit schedule property and they are trying to trespass with an intention to make illegal benefit. Though complaint was lodged to the jurisdictional police, the police advised the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. The defendants are influential persons in the area having support of both men and material. Therefore, he filed a suit for injunction. 3. The defendants filed written statement, denied the plaint averments and contended that the defendants are the owners of khaneshumari No.16. The plaintiff has given wrong boundaries including khaneshumari No.16 and according to the defendants they are the owners of khaneshumari No.16 under a partition deed dated 14.11.1953. Therefore, sought to dismiss the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction reiterating averments made in the plaint. The defendants filed objections to the said application reiterating the averments made in the written statement. 5. The Trial Court, considering the application and the objections, by the impugned order dated 03.12.2016 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff and allowed the application filed by the defendants for vacating the status quo order. Hence the present appeal is filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri S. Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court has committed serious irregularity in dismissing the application for temporary injunction without verifying the pleadings and documents produced in support of the case. He further contended that from pleadings in the plaint it is very clear that plaintiff is the owner of the property and pleadings in the written statement clearly indicates that the first defendant is the owner of the property No.16, both are adjoining each other. To adjudicate the same, trial is required. The Trial Court without conducting the trial with regard to identity of the property passed the impugned order. Therefore, he sought to setaside the order of the Trial Court. 8. To adjudicate the same, trial is required. The Trial Court without conducting the trial with regard to identity of the property passed the impugned order. Therefore, he sought to setaside the order of the Trial Court. 8. Per Contra, Sri M. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and strenuously contended that the earlier two suits filed by the plaintiff in respect of the very property in question against one Muniyanna S/o Sri. T. Anjanappa and against the first defendant Venkataramanappa for injunction came to be dismissed and therefore, he sought to dismiss the present appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, the only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is: “Whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?” 10. It is the specific case of the appellant plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit schedule property morefully described in the schedule as khaneshumari No.15 and after the death of his father, his name was entered in all the revenue records. It is the specific case of the defendant that the defendants are the owners of khaneshumari No.16 but while giving the boundaries the plaintiff has included khaneshumari No.16 within the boundaries of khaneshumari No.15. 11. It is undisputed fact that the plaintiff claiming injunction on the basis of ownership stating that he is the owner on the basis of the inheritance from the father. The defendants claim right in respect of khaneshumari No.16 on the basis of the registered partition deed dated 10.10.1953. It is also not in dispute that the very plaintiff filed earlier O.S. No. 547/1990 against Muniyappa for declaration, possession, permanent injunction in respect of the suit property which came to be dismissed. It is also not in dispute that the earlier the very plaintiff filed O.S.No.5254/2015 against the 1st defendant for permanent injunction in respect of the very same property. It came to be dismissed. It is also not in dispute that the earlier the very plaintiff filed O.S.No.5254/2015 against the 1st defendant for permanent injunction in respect of the very same property. It came to be dismissed. The Trial Court considering the entire material on record has recorded a finding of fact that the sale deed dated 05.03.1913 purchased by the father of the plaintiff Appajappa from Hanumantharayappa, S/o Kalingaiah not tally with the boundaries of the suit schedule property but plaintiff has not explained the boundaries of the suit schedule property are different. Primafacie, the Trial Court found that identity is in dispute and in view of the earlier failure in two suits in respect of the very same suit property, the Trial Court was of the opinion that plaintiff has not made out any ground to grant injunction. Same is based on material and legal evidence on record. The plaintiff has not made out any ground to interfere with the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. Accordingly, Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.