JUDGMENT : The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.1 dated 06.10.2016 in O.S.No.155/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge, Deodurga has filed this appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants before the trial Court. 3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.155/2016 for relief of declaration and injunction in respect of suit property. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from creating obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs in support of application filed an affidavit contending that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of property bearing Sy.No.12 measuring 16 acres 7 guntas situated at Sunnadkal village, Deodurga taluk. The said land was originally belonging to the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 namely Balappa Hanamappa @ Hanumagouda who died leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and successors to him and to his property. After the demise of said Balappa S/o Hanamappa @ Hanumagouda, the plaintiff No.1 who is the wife of said Balappa has succeeded to the said land and continued in possession of the suit property by way of cultivating the same. Due to financial problems, the plaintiffs Nos.2 to 5 have migrated to Pune for their livelihood and used to visit their village once in a month. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are no way concerned to the family of the plaintiffs and they are totally strangers to the family of the plaintiffs. On 09.05.2005 defendants Nos.1 to 4 without having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property filed an application for effecting mutation in their name with the forged signature of their mother. On the basis of false documents, names of defendants came to be entered in the revenue records, by way of mutation order as per ME No.36/04-05 dated 23.06.2005. On the strength of the mutation order, the defendants are trying to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking for an order of temporary injunction. On the strength of the mutation order, the defendants are trying to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking for an order of temporary injunction. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing objection denying the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and further, it is contended that the defendants/respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the suit property has mutated in the names of the defendants vide mutation order in ME No.36/04-05. It is contended that plaintiffs and defendants are relatives. The plaintiffs were well aware about the facts mentioned above and mutation order effected in favour of defendants. Hence, prayed to reject the application. The trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, this appeal is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the defendants have admitted the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. He also further submits that defendants by playing fraud on the revenue authority got the property mutated vide ME No.36/04-05. He further submits that the plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. He further submits that the trial Court has not properly considered the material produced by the parties and further submits that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, on these grounds prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that names of defendants are appearing in the revenue records as on the date of filing of the suit. He further submits that there is presumption under section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The trial Court by drawing the presumption under Section 133 of the Act has recorded a finding that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for interference. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. The trial Court by drawing the presumption under Section 133 of the Act has recorded a finding that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for interference. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Perused the material on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of suit schedule property and defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have filed an application seeking an order of temporary injunction contending that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have not produced any record to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the names of the defendants are appearing in the revenue records as on the date of filing of the suit. From the perusal of the records, RTC extracts, produced by the plaintiffs, disclose the names of defendants in the Record of Rights. As per Section 133 of the Act, there is presumption in regard to revenue entries. The revenue entries presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. In the present case, the plaintiffs have not produced any rebuttal evidence. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants by creating the false documents have got entered/mutated their names in the revenue records. An allegation made against defendants in regard to creation of documents or forgery or fraud, the matter requires to be tried during the course of trial. The Court cannot record a finding on the basis of affidavit and counter affidavit. The names of the defendants are appearing since from 2004-05 as per ME No.36/04-05. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs have challenged the mutation order effected in favour of defendants. The trial Court was justified in recording a finding that the allegation made by the plaintiffs requires to be tried during the course of trial. The names of the defendants are appearing since from 2004-05 as per ME No.36/04-05. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs have challenged the mutation order effected in favour of defendants. The trial Court was justified in recording a finding that the allegation made by the plaintiffs requires to be tried during the course of trial. The plaintiffs have failed to establish the possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiffs have failed to establish prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The trial Court considering the entire records was justified in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration. Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court records forthwith.