The court emphasized the distinction between prima facie case and prima facie title, highlighting the need for a trial to determine the validity of the agreement and possession.

( 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 plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in O. S. No. 117 of 1993. 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 claimed 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 CPC, for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs possession during the pendency of the suit. Ex parts 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 CPC.

( 2 ) THE Trial Court after consideration of the application and the objections and the material before it, by its order dated 80-9-1993 made the interim order of injunction absolute and dismissed the application LA. 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 30-9-1993, the defendant preferred miscellaneous Appeal No. 22of 1993 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 of the Munsiff dated 30-9-1993 and vacated the temporary injunction order which had been granted 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 to 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 Civil Judge in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 22 of 1993, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the cpc. 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 lowe