Prima facie possession supported by registered deeds and revenue records sustains an interim injunction.

The respondent-plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction concerning 3 acres 34 guntas in Sy. Nos. 83/1, 83/2 and 83/3, and sought temporary relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The trial court rejected the application, finding that the registered sale deeds relied on covered only part of the suit property.

On the plaintiff’s appeal, the First Appellate Court restrained the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

The defendants challenged that order under Article 226, contending that the deeds did not cover the full extent and that revenue entries supported their claim.

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in granting temporary injunction after the trial court had rejected the plaintiff’s application.

Whether the impugned appellate order warranted interference in the writ petition, given the material concerning the plaintiff’s title and possession.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC govern applications for temporary injunction.

The court assessed whether the material prima facie supported the plaintiff’s claim to possession and whether the First Appellate Court had properly exercised its discretion on the record.

The petitioners cited Sanjay Paliwal and Another v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. in support of their contention that a bare-injunction suit would not be maintainable where title and possession are clouded; the respondent cited Shruti Manav Sharma and Another v. Sunanina Singh and Others on the meaning of a prima facie case.

The court did not separately develop or apply either cited precedent in its reasoning.

The High Court noted that the plaintiff relied on registered sale deeds dated 21 January 1988 and 13 May 1993 for Sy. Nos. 83/1 and 83/2, while the suit also included Sy. No. 83/3, which those deeds did not cover.

It considered the revenue documents to indicate the plaintiff’s occupation of Sy. No. 83/1, measuring 1 acre 11½ guntas, and found that the sale deeds and other revenue entries prima facie supported his possession.

On that material, the First Appellate Court’s assessment and exercise of discretion were justified; the High Court found no basis to interfere with its prima facie finding.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and left in force the First Appellate Court’s order restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.