ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Senior Civil Judge Bagepalli in MA No.50/2024 confirming the order of the Civil Judge and JMFC-Bageppalli in O.S.No.382/2022 by rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. 3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per the status before the trial Court as plaintiffs and defendants. 4. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. Along with the plaint, an application came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' suit schedule property. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that one Maddanna, S/o Degani Maddireddy, was the original owner of property bearing Survey No. 66/5, measuring 0.08 guntas, situated at Gujjepally Village, Kuthur Majara, Pathapalya Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk. The said Maddanna S/o Degani Maddireddy sold the suit schedule property to the father of the plaintiffs, namely Sri.Venkatarayappa by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.09.1943 and thereafter his name was mutated in the revenue records till his survival. 6. It is submitted that during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and after his death, the plaintiffs and their mother were in enjoyment of the same. This being the state of affairs, the mother of defendant No.1 Smt.Ramakka filed suit against the plaintiffs in OS No.214/2002 for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. The said suit, after detailed trial, came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 preferred an appeal in RA No. 133/2005, which also came to be dismissed on 12.04.2014. Thereafter, the contention of the defendant No.1 came to be rejected with regard for grant of any permanent injunction in her favour. 7. The husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 filed O.S.No.222/2002 against the plaintiffs for permanent injunction. The said suit also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the contention of the defendant No.1 came to be rejected with regard for grant of any permanent injunction in her favour. 7. The husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 filed O.S.No.222/2002 against the plaintiffs for permanent injunction. The said suit also came to be dismissed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the same was again challenged in RA.No.134/2005. The said appeal also came to be dismissed on 12.04.2014. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property. They have absolutely no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. They filed a frivolous suit without there being any right or interest in the suit schedule property by claiming ownership to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, their respective suits came to be dismissed and the appeals challenging the same also came to be dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiffs, having filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction and having relied upon the sale deed of their deceased father and having inherited the same, have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property during the lifetime of their father and after the death, the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 8. The plaintiffs have produced RTC Extract and the sale deed to show that their father was the owner and the RTC standing in the name of the father of the plaintiffs. This being the state of affairs, defendants have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession. Hence the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction. consequently an application was also filed for grant of ad-interim temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. 9. The trial Court has rejected the same upon contest by the defendants on the ground that the survey sketch produced by the defendants reveals existence of a house in the suit schedule property and therefore the plaintiffs have not made out a ground for grant of temporary injunction. 9. The trial Court has rejected the same upon contest by the defendants on the ground that the survey sketch produced by the defendants reveals existence of a house in the suit schedule property and therefore the plaintiffs have not made out a ground for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court has also come to a conclusion that the defendants have produced some partition deed and that three equal shares were divided and a sketch has been produced to that extent in the survey No. 66/5 measuring 0.08 guntas out of which in the sketch MNOP is a house constructed by Lakshmi narasamma and the area earmarked as STUV is a thatched house. The area earmarked as MPQR is a house list No. 6 measuring 38.5x30 feet standing in the name of Smt. Ramakka. 10. Based on all these, the trial Court negated the contentions of the plaintiffs and agreed with the defendants and rejected the grant of ad-interim temporary injunction order in favour of the plaintiffs on the ground that at this stage it cannot be held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case. Upon challenge, the appellate court relying upon orders passed by the trial Court and on the basis of the very same averments and the sketch and other huts as per the survey sketch has rejected the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that the impugned order passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court deserves to be set aside and an order of injunction be granted as the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case with regard to title and the RTC in the name of the father and they have inherited the property. On the contrary, no cogent material or documents are placed by the defendants to show any right over the suit schedule property or their possession over the suit schedule property, except to show that there is a hut and a sketch has been produced. Hence, seeks to allow the petition. 11. On the contrary, no cogent material or documents are placed by the defendants to show any right over the suit schedule property or their possession over the suit schedule property, except to show that there is a hut and a sketch has been produced. Hence, seeks to allow the petition. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants vehemently contends that the trial court is justified in rejecting the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and so also there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by both the Courts, as both the Courts have come to a conclusion on the basis of the sketch and the huts in existence as per the sketch, which are showing three portions of the huts in the said survey number. Therefore, the trial Court and the first appellate court have rightly rejected it, as plaintiffs have not made out any ground to show their possession in the suit schedule property. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants also contends that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have ignored the commissioner's report and the sketch produced before the trial Court in the earlier proceedings initiated by the defendants. Therefore, he contends that there is no need for interference of this Court and it is for the plaintiffs to establish a right and possession in a suit for permanent injunction in the course of trial. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for defendants, it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have produced a sale deed dated 20.09.1943 with regard to the suit schedule property bearing Survey No. 66/5 measuring to an extent of 0.08 guntas having been registered in the name of the deceased father, Sri Venkatarayappa, and during his lifetime, revenue records were mutated in his name. Pursuant to his death, the property devolved upon the plaintiffs as legal heirs of Sri.Venkatarayappa, and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also not in dispute that the defendant No.1 and the other defendants' predecessors filed Original Suit in O.S.No.214/2002 and O.S.No.222/2002 seeking the relief of a permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. 14. Both the suits came to be dismissed. It is also not in dispute that the defendant No.1 and the other defendants' predecessors filed Original Suit in O.S.No.214/2002 and O.S.No.222/2002 seeking the relief of a permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. 14. Both the suits came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants challenged it by way of an appeal in RA No.133/2005 and R.A.134/2005. The said regular appeals also came to be dismissed. Therefore, the contention of defendants for grant of permanent injunction over the portion of the property in Survey No. 66/5, formed out of eight guntas, came to be rejected. Despite the documents relied on by the defendants, and the commissioner's report and the sketch that was placed before the trial Court. The same was also negated by the appellate Court in both these proceedings initiated by the defendants. When the defendants were unable to succeed in both the suits and the appeals preferred, the very same documents were relied on by the defendants in the present suit initiated by the plaintiffs to contend that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and they have a right over the property to the extent shown in the sketch in three huts. The trial Court has believed the version of the defendants and has arrived at a conclusion that merely the RTC was standing in the name of the plaintiffs and the sale deed and the since plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property, plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case and have relied upon the sketch to show that there is a house and the hut. Therefore, rejected the claim of the plaintiff for grant of ad-interim temporary injunction. 15. I am afraid the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the first appellate Court are perverse and illegal and contrary to the material placed on record by plaintiffs as well as the defendants. 16. In a suit for permanent injunction, an application came to be filed by the plaintiffs, essential requirements required to be considered by the trial Court are prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused. 17. 16. In a suit for permanent injunction, an application came to be filed by the plaintiffs, essential requirements required to be considered by the trial Court are prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused. 17. In the case on hand, plaintiffs have relied upon the registered sale deed dated 20.09.1943 of their father and revenue records registered in his favour so also RTC extracts stand in the name of the deceased father of the plaintiff. 18. Therefore, in a vacant site and the hut property the possession follows title. Therefore, even though there is a sketch produced showing two to three huts as per sketch relied on by defendants and the same cannot be considered for the reason that these very documents filed by the defendants in the respective injunction suit came to be rejected by the trial Court and the challenge by the defendants before the first appellate Court was also rejected. It cannot be now considered in the present suit filed by the plaintiffs that defendants are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, if at all defendants are able to establish during the course of trial they may succeed upon such ground upon such trial. 19. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case, balance of convenience tilts in their favour and more hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs rather than the defendants on the basis of title deeds and revenue records standing in the name of the plaintiffs. 20. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER The petition is allowed. 2. The impugned order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bagepalli, in M.A.No.50/2024 is hereby set aside and consequently the order passed by the Civil Judge JMFC, Bagepalli in O.S.NO.382/2023, 26.07.2024 is also set aside. 3. An order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The respondents/defendants are restrained from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till disposal of the case. 4. It is needless to mention that this order is passed only for the purpose of consideration of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. 5. The respondents/defendants are restrained from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till disposal of the case. 4. It is needless to mention that this order is passed only for the purpose of consideration of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. 5. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence, and the trial Court is at liberty to consider the merits of the matter on the basis of materials placed before the Court.