JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the appellant’s counsel and respondent’s counsel. 2. This appeal is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2017 on I.A.Nos.1 and 2. The defendant filed the I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and I.A.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. By the impugned order, the trial Court restrained the defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also from dispossessing the plaintiff’s from the suit property without due process of law by allowing I.A.No.1. The trial Court rejected the I.A.No.2 filed by the defendant. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit in respect of Site No.14, Khatha No.152 formed in Sy. No.41/4, Singaiana palya Village, Devasandra Dhakle, Mahadevapura Post, K.R.Pura Hobli, measuring East to West 35 feet and North to South 40 feet. The plaintiff’s claims the ownership over to the suit property through a registered Sale Deed dated 25.02.1994. She claims to have obtained the revenue records transferred to her name. She alleged interference by the defendant’s and therefore she filed the suit. 4. In the written statement. the defendant contended that originally the site measuring East to West 25 feet and North to South 40 feet was carved in Sy.No.41/14. The said site belonged to one Aneppa. He sold the same in favour of M.S.Babajan, S/o Hayathsab, under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1964. The said M.S.Babajan sold the said property in favour of one Shivarao S/o Madhav Rao, under a registered sale deed 7.4.1971. The said Shivarao sold the property in favour of Dasappa. It is also stated that the husband of plaintiff namely Ramalinga @ Ramalingappa caused interference with the possession of Dasappa. Therefore he filed a suit in O.S.No.3762/1992 against the plaintiff’s husband. The said suit was decreed on 24.8.1993 and the said decree was not challenged at all. It is also stated that the schedule property merged with the BBMP and thereafter khatha was transferred in the name of Dasappa. He died on 3.5.1999. Thereafter, the sons of Dasappa obtained khatha in their name and then sold the same in favour of the defendant through registered deed dated 23.08.2016. It is further contended that the plaintiff has purchased the site by virtue of the sale deed dated 25.2.1994 from T.Ramalingppa. He died on 3.5.1999. Thereafter, the sons of Dasappa obtained khatha in their name and then sold the same in favour of the defendant through registered deed dated 23.08.2016. It is further contended that the plaintiff has purchased the site by virtue of the sale deed dated 25.2.1994 from T.Ramalingppa. The vendor of the plaintiff appears to have purchased the suit property on 8.9.1983 and it was not a registered sale deed and therefore plaintiff would not derive a title better then that of vendor. 5. The Trial Court having perused the documents produced by either side of the parties came to the conclusion that the property being claimed by the plaintiff is different from the property claimed by the defendant. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the plaintiff was in possession over the suit property and therefore the plaintiff had made out a primafacie case. It also arrived at a conclusion that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and if an injunction was not granted, the plaintiff’s interest would be very much affected. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argues that the decree passed in O.S.No.3762/1992 filed by the Dasappa against Ramalinga @ Ramalingappa, plaintiff’s husband is not challenged and it has become final. The defendant is in possession of the suit property and that there are documents to this effect. The Trial Court should not have given a finding that plaintiff was in possession on the date of the suit. He also argues that the plaintiff claims two reliefs in the same application and that the plaintiff should have confined the prayer one of the two and the trail Court has not taken this aspect of the matter inspite of the same being brought to his notice. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, the trial Court has wrongly exercise discretion in granting an order of temporary injunction. He also submits that suit property is vacant and entire property is now fenced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argues that the trial Court has not committed any error in granting an order of temporary injunction because the documents produced by the plaintiff discloses her possession on the date of the suit. She also produced some photographs to contend that schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff. According to her, the trial Court properly exercised discretion. She also produced some photographs to contend that schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff. According to her, the trial Court properly exercised discretion. There are no grounds to interfere with impugned order. 8. After carefully perusing the documents, the trial Court appears to have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case. The trial Court has taken into consideration the sale deed produced by the plaintiff and the revenue records which stands in the name of the plaintiff. No doubt it is true that the defendant has also produced some documents to show that the property stands in his name. One important fact to be mentioned here is that the defendant has taken the contention very clearly that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff’s vendor was un registered. Therefore, plaintiff would not derive any title. Probably this could be the reason for the trial Court to grant an order of injunction restraining the defendant from dispossession of the plaintiff without due process of law. On going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that if on the date of the suit plaintiff was able to make out her possession based on documents, there is nothing wrong in granting an order of injunction. However, it appears that both the parties claim the same property though the trial Court observes that the plaintiff’s property and defendant’s property are different. I have perused the photographs produced by the learned counsel for the respondent, which appears to be not disputed. There exists a small shed which is probably not in occupation of any body. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is appropriate that the same status of the property shall be maintained till disposal of the suit. To this extent, the impugned order can be modified. 9. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the order granted by the trail Court on I.A.No.1 by directing the plaintiff and the defendant to maintain the present status of the property as observed above till disposal of the suit.