THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.872 of 2010 Judgment: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Appellant is the second defendant, respondent Nos.3 to 7 are defendant Nos.1,3 to 6 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are plaintiffs in O.S.No.60 of 2008 filed for declaration of their right over the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1942 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court, after considering all the documents, allowed the said I.A., holding that the plaintiffs are able to prove their possession over item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court ought not to have granted temporary injunction based on the unregistered documents, which are invalid and it failed to appreciate the documents filed by the defendants. 4. We have perused the order impugned, which discloses that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Exs.A1 to A21 to prove their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the appellant and respondent Nos.3 to 7 relied on Exs.B1 to B12. As per Exs.A1 to A6, an extent of Acs.5-00 with mango trees in Sy.No.2084 is in possession and enjoyment of respondent No.1 and as per Exs.A7 and A8, respondent No.2 is the owner of land to an extent of Ac.0.30 gts in Sy.No.511/1 of Vemsoor village, which is item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Insofar as Exs.B1 to B12 are concerned, the trial Court found that they are not related to the suit schedule property. The validity or otherwise of those documents can be decided only after full-fledged trial. The trial Court, after perusing the documents and other material on record in proper perspective, found that there is a prima facie case in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and held that they are able to prove their possession over item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. Therefore, we find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date:06.10.2010. SJ