property much prior to plaintiff filing the present suit for permanent injunction. The first appellate court at Paragraph 27 has only noted the plaintiff has not exhibited any "documents" to evidence the interference caused by the defendant. It is not uncommon that in the case of interference or threat of interference, a party can approach the Court even in the absence of documentary evidence seeking protection of his rights. The Courts are required to take in the consideration the pleading, material evidence, attending and incidental circumstances to infer the interference. Further, when the plaintiff prima facie establishes his right, there is corresponding obligation on the part of the defendant. In the instant case, the defendants are claiming the property to be joint family property. The plaintiff, on the other hand prima facie established his right, title and possession over the same. The first appellate court has rightly taken these aspects of the matter into consideration as noted in Paragraph 27 of the Judgment. Therefore, the apprehension of the plaintiff with regard to invasion/threat of invasion of his right to property by the
