JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Udhampur (‘the appellate Court’ for short), whereby the appeal filed against order dated 06.07.2020 passed by learned Munsiff (District Judicial Mobile), Udhampur (‘the trial Court’ for short) in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been allowed, the impugned order therein has been set aside and the petitioners/respondents have been restrained from causing any interference or obstruction in raising any sort of construction including the partition wall by the respondent/plaintiff. 2. It appears that the respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the petitioners/defendants before the leaned trial Court seeking a mandatory injunction to handover the vacant possession of a piece of land measuring 65 feet x 78 feet 6 inches falling in khasra No.207 (new) and 73(old)situated at Sui, Udhampur, after removing malba of a house constructed over the said land. A further permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff over land measuring 01 kanal comprised in aforesaid khasra number and in obstructing respondent/plaintiff from raising construction on the said land was also sought. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the plaintiff seeking an interim injunction against the petitioners/defendants. 3. After completion of the pleadings, the learned trial Court decided the interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in terms of order dated 06.07.2020 whereby an ex parte interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent was vacated by holding that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour. 4. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the respondent/plaintiff by way of an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Vide impugned order, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial Court.While doing so, the learned Appellate Court concluded that the respondent/plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour and that balance of convenience also lies in his favour. Accordingly, the petitioners/defendants have been restrained from causing interference or causing any obstruction in the way of respondent/plaintiff’s raising any sort of construction including the construction of a partition wall. Accordingly, the petitioners/defendants have been restrained from causing interference or causing any obstruction in the way of respondent/plaintiff’s raising any sort of construction including the construction of a partition wall. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court in the present petition. 5. The petitioners/defendants have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned Appellate Court has not referred to the material that was available before the said Court and the trial Court while passing the impugned order. It has been contended that while passing the impugned order, learned appellate Court has virtually granted part of the final relief in favour of the respondent/plaintiff at interim stage itself. It has been further contended that the petitioners/defendants are admittedly in possession of part of the suit property on which they have constructed a house, therefore, at this stage, they had a prima facie defence to the claim of defendant/plaintiff, but the same has not been considered by the learned appellate Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including record of the trial Court. 7. Before coming to the grounds of challenge, it would apt to briefly state the cases set up by the parties before the trial Court. 8. As per the case of the defendant/plaintiffs, they had purchased the suit land measuring 1 kanal comprised in khasra No.207 (new)and 73(old)new by virtue of a sale deed dated 05.05.2000.It has been pleaded by the defendant/plaintiffs before that trial Court that petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 happen to be his co-brother and sister-in-law and they approached him to allow them to raise construction on a portion of the suit land, so that they can send their children to school at Udhampur. It has been further pleaded that the said request was acceded to by the respondent/plaintiff and, accordingly, the petitioners/defendants were permitted to raise construction of a house on 05 marlas of land on the back side(western side)of the suit land and to use entry on the eastern side of the suit land. 9. It is the further case of the respondent/plaintiff that in the year 2006, he constructed a house and two shops towards the western side of the suit land and he also constructed a cow shed/store in between his house and the house of the petitioners/defendants. 9. It is the further case of the respondent/plaintiff that in the year 2006, he constructed a house and two shops towards the western side of the suit land and he also constructed a cow shed/store in between his house and the house of the petitioners/defendants. According to the respondent/plaintiff, in December, 2019, he asked defendant No.1 to vacate the suit land and handover the possession thereof to him, but the petitioners/defendants started raising dispute and made a claim relating to their right to use the passage from the gate of the house of respondent/plaintiff to the house in occupation of the petitioners/defendants. It seems that the relations between the parties got strained and ultimately, the respondent/plaintiff intended to raise a partition wall between the portion of the land which is in his occupation and the portion of land which is in occupation of the petitioners/defendants. This action of the respondent/plaintiff did not go down well with the petitioners/defendants and they started objecting to it and claiming that access to their house would get blocked if the partition wall is erected by the respondent/plaintiff. As a consequence of this, the defendant/plaintiff filed a suit before the trial Court. 10. As per the case of the petitioners/defendants, the land in question i.e 1 kanal of land, though purchased in the name of the respondent/plaintiff, was purchased jointly by the respondent/plaintiff and petitioner/defendant No.1 out of their funds. It has been claimed that petitioner/defendant No.1 reposed confidence in respondent/plaintiff and because he could not trace out his permanent residence certificate, as such, the land was purchased in the name of respondent/plaintiff only. It is the case of the petitioners/defendants that petitioner/defendant No.1 also constructed one shop in the year 2000 on the suit land besides constructing a two storeyed house towards the back side of the suit land which is presently under occupation of the petitioners/defendants. It has been claimed by the petitioners/defendants that there is a common entry to both the houses of the parties which leads from main road up to the house of the petitioners/defendants and the same is in use for the last about 20 years. According to the petitioners/defendants, 5 feet wide lane, shown to be existing at the back side, towards the eastern side of their house is not a proper approach to their house as a vehicle cannot pass through this passage. 11. According to the petitioners/defendants, 5 feet wide lane, shown to be existing at the back side, towards the eastern side of their house is not a proper approach to their house as a vehicle cannot pass through this passage. 11. In short, the case of the petitioners/defendants is that the parties to the suit are joint owners of the land in question and they are in joint possession of the same having a common passage/approach to their respective houses. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff cannot raise a partition wall thereby blocking the passage to the house of petitioners/defendants. 12. From the pleadings of the parties, it emerges that whole of the suit land is recorded in the name of respondent/plaintiff. The petitioners/defendants claim that petitioner/defendant No.1 has also contributed to purchase of the said land, but he has not placed on record any material either before trial Court or before the Appellate Court to substantiate the said claim. Recorded ownership with respect to the suit land in favour of respondent/plaintiff is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the revenue record, the suit land is entered in the name of the respondent/plaintiff. In the absence of any material/document to the contrary, it has to be prima facie presumed that the land in question belongs to the respondent/plaintiff. Whatever constructions have been raised on the suit land would normally be presumed to be owned by the respondent/plaintiff, but in the instant case, the respondent/plaintiff has himself admitted that petitioner/defendant No.1 has raised construction on 5 marlas of the aforesaid land which is located towards the back side of the plot. The only inference that can be drawn, in these circumstances, is that the respondent/plaintiff has allowed the petitioner/defendant No.1 to raise construction on a portion of the land belonging to him. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners/defendants are in possession of a house and a portion of the land for the last so many years, therefore, their possession over the said portion of the land can be termed as ‘settled possession’. Having held so, the petitioners/defendants cannot be evicted from the said portion of the property without adopting due course of law which the respondent/plaintiff has adopted by filing a suit before the trial Court seeking a relief of mandatory injunction asking the petitioners/defendants to vacate the said portion of the land. 14. Having held so, the petitioners/defendants cannot be evicted from the said portion of the property without adopting due course of law which the respondent/plaintiff has adopted by filing a suit before the trial Court seeking a relief of mandatory injunction asking the petitioners/defendants to vacate the said portion of the land. 14. The question, however, arises whether the petitioners/defendants, who, prima facie, have no title to the land in question, but have been only allowed to raise construction of a house by the respondent/plaintiff on a portion of the land in question, can stop the respondent/plaintiff from raising any sort of construction on a portion of land which is in his possession. The answer to this question has to be in negative. As already stated, there is material on record to prima face show that whole of the land measuring 01 kanal belongs to the respondent/plaintiff, out of which, he has handed over possession of 05 marlas of land to the petitioners/defendants. So far as the balance land is concerned, which is in occupation of the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioners/defendants have no business to interfere therein and they cannot stop the respondent/plaintiff from raising construction thereon. 15. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that if the respondent/plaintiff is allowed to raise construction on a portion of land in his possession, the passage leading to the house of the petitioners/defendants would get blocked. In this regard, it is to be noted that it has been admitted by the petitioners/defendants in their written statement that there is a 05 feet wide passage towards the eastern side their house meaning thereby that passage leading through the land of the respondent/plaintiff is not the only passage available to the petitioners/defendants. The passage available on the back side of the land in question may be narrow in width, but nonetheless, the petitioners/defendants can use the said passage for entering into the property in their possession. The petitioners/defendants cannot claim a motorable road through the property which is admittedly owned and possessed by the respondent/plaintiff. 16. During the pendency of this petition, Commissioners were appointed by this Court in terms of order dated 21.02.2024 to inspect the suit property and to submit a report in this regard. The petitioners/defendants cannot claim a motorable road through the property which is admittedly owned and possessed by the respondent/plaintiff. 16. During the pendency of this petition, Commissioners were appointed by this Court in terms of order dated 21.02.2024 to inspect the suit property and to submit a report in this regard. In the report submitted by the Commissioners, it has been indicated that there was a passage from the main road up to the house of petitioners/defendants through the land owned and possessed by the respondent/plaintiff. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the said passage was under the use of petitioners/defendants for the last so many years and that the same cannot be blocked now. The contention is without merit, for the reason that the respondent/plaintiff, in view of the close relationship between the parties, may have allowed the petitioners/defendants to use that passage, but that does not create any right in favour of the petitioners/defendants to use the said passage for all times to come when they have an alternative passage to their house available on the eastern side of the suit land. 17. The appellate Court while passing the impugned order has rightly concluded that merely because the petitioners/defendants have been allowed to raise construction on a portion of the suit land does not mean that they have a right to prevent the respondent/plaintiff from raising construction even on the portion of the land which is in his possession. The conclusions arrived at by the appellate Court are based on the material available before it and the legal position on the subject. This Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, can interfere with the decision of a subordinate Authority only if it’s findings are perverse, or the conclusions drawn by it are contrary to the evidence or based on inferences that are impermissible in law or if the findings arrived at are erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence. This Court cannot act as an appellate body to re-appreciate the material on record. In the instant case, as already noted, the appellate Court has reached the conclusions/findings on the basis of the relevant material and it cannot be sated that these conclusions/findings are contrary to the evidence. This Court cannot act as an appellate body to re-appreciate the material on record. In the instant case, as already noted, the appellate Court has reached the conclusions/findings on the basis of the relevant material and it cannot be sated that these conclusions/findings are contrary to the evidence. In the face of this situation, it is not open to this Court to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court. 18. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated.