under Ex.P-1. They are paying the Municipal Tax under Exs.P-3 to P-6. So, these documents prima facie show that the respondents herein were in possession of the property by the date of filing of the suit. On the other hand, the petitioners herein not filed any single document to show that they have been in possession of the property on the date of filing of the suit. With regard to prima facie title, it must be shown that the children of the alleged second wife are entitled for share in the father’s property. Though the first wife pre-deceased her husband, still it has to be shown that, under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, whether the illegitimate children are entitled for a share in the father’s property, because there no provision under Indian Succession Act is brought to the notice of this Court similar to the provision of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, the petitioners herein have prima facie failed to establish that they have got a right or a share in the property i.e, plaint schedule property. Similarly, they have failed to show that they are in possession of the property. So, based upon the material available on record, both the Courts below have rightly held that the respondents herein were in possession of the property by the date of filing of the suit by establishing their title. If the injunction is not granted to the respondents herein they would be dispossessed from the plaint schedule property, which will cause hardship for them. Therefore, both the Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence, rightly granted temporary injunction and none of the findings recorded by both the Courts is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
