The Court clarified the distinction between prima facie case and prima facie title, emphasizing that the agreement's validity and possession should be determined at trial, not at the interim stage.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-applicant filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff 's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in O. S. No. 117/93. The plaintiff claimed that under an agreement to sell dated 28-5-1985, the respondent agreed to sell the property in dispute for a sale consideration of Rs. 52,000/ -. According to the plaintiffs case the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration on different dates as and when defendant demanded and he put the plaintiff into possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiff filed the suit with the allegation that defendant threatened to interfere and tried to take possession of the same from the plaintiff, so the plaintiff filed the suit for decree for permanent injunction. Plaintiff claim himself entitled to the possession of the land in dispute under that agreement. Along with the plaint of the suit, the plaintiff-applicant filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. , for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff 's possession during the pendency of the suit. Ex parte injunction was granted by the trial Court and thereafter notice was also issued to the defendant along with the summons of the suit and opposite party was called upon to file the objections to the application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C.

( 2 ) THE trial Court after consideration of the application and the objections and the material before it, by its order dated 30-9-1993 made the interim order of injunction absolute and dismissed the application I. A. No. 4 which had been moved by defendant- respondent for vacation of the injunction order.

( 3 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the judgment and order of the learned Munsiff, dated 30-09-93, the defendant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 22-93 in the Court of Civil Judge, Madikeri. By judgment and order dated 4th August, 1995, the learned Civil Judge allowed the defendant-respondent 's appeal and set aside the judgment and order if the Munsif dated 30-09-93 and vacated the temporary injunction order which had been ranted by the learned Munsiff.

( 4 ) THE lower appellate Court has also taken the view that the document namely the agreement of sale on which the plaintiff has tried to rely has not only been denied but it has also been alleged that the said agreement has been challenged with serious allegations of fraud and misrepresentation and as such the document cannot be accepted on its face value. It further observed that under the Government grant there were certain conditions that the grantee could not transfer the land for a definite period. So permitting entering into such a contract would only defeat the purpose of the grant. The lower appellate Court has mentioned that apart from the agreement and the General Power of Attorney no other document has been filed to prove possession and so it cannot be said that the plaintiff had been put in possession and he has purchased the said property under agreement as alleged execute the sale deed. It is on this basis that the lower appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court.

( 5 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the judgment and order of the learned Munsiff in Misc. Appeal No. 22/93, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the C. P. C. It may be mentioned here that the trial Court at page 12 of the copy of the judgment recorded the finding to the effect that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property under agreement to sell. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and he had been in lawful possession and cultivated Coffee crop and that if the temporary injunction is refused he would be subjected to irreparable loss and it granted the temporary injunction order.

( 6 ) THE lower appellate Co