The findings of the lower courts that the plaintiff was in possession of the property were based on the documents produced by the parties and were not perverse.

( 1 ) THE opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 had filed a suit being Original Suit No. 145 of 1996 before civil Judge. Junior Division, Chakla Varanasi. In connection with the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed. By an order dated 11. 9. 1997 temporary injunction was granted. Appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No. 225 of 1997 was filed by the defendants. The appeal was dismissed by an order dated 20. 3. 1998 passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes court. These are the orders under challenge.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri R. J. Singh contends that opposite party No. 3 Smt. Piyari Devi, has been claiming interest over the property by virtue of will executed in her favour on 31. 1. 1973 whereas petitioner-defendant claiming interest over the property by virtue of Will dated 25. 3. 1973 executed by the same person. According to him, it is an established principle of law that the last will shall prevail.

( 3 ) HE further contends that the petitioners having been in physical possession, they cannot be dispossessed by virtue of interim order. From the material on record according to him, the plaintiff was unable to establish prima facie case. On the face of will, the plaintiff did not have any title to the property. In the Commissioners report it was found that the masons and workers working on the land has testified that they were working under defendant-petitioners, herein. Both the Courts below have overlooked the said findings recorded in the report of the commissioner and had arrived at altogether to a perverse conclusion. He further submits that the order, as it appears, suffers from the perversity. He led me through various orders in order to substantiate his case.

( 4 ) MISS Farida Jamal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties, on the other hand, contends that both the Courts have come to a finding of fact on the basis of materials placed before it. The said findings being concurrent finding, this Court sitting in revision, cannot interfere with the same. The materials on record overwhelming support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property is recorded in the name of the plaintiff. She points out that the report of the Commissioner was also taken into consideration by the Courts below and it had come to a conclusion against the defendants on the basis of such report. According to her even if on the basis of such report, this Court is of a different view, this Court cannot substitute its own view to that of the view taken by the Court, that too concurrently. She also contends that there is no perversity in the order impugned and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the same.

( 5 ) HEARD learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the relevant papers placed before this Court. It appears that both the Courts below have relied upon the documents produced by the parties and had come to a conclusion on the basis thereof that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. The alleged Will was executed sometimes in the year 1973 while the suit was filed in 1996, namely, after twenty three years. All the records produced before the court below were found in favour of the plaintiff. The report of the Commissioner was also considered and reasons have been given as to why the Courts below did not agree with the finding recorded in the Commissioners report. In the report of the Commissioner, it was pointed out that the masons and workers working on the said land were working under the petitioners but their testimony cannot have any impact on the present case. I do not find any unreasonableness in such a finding. The title of the property which is to be decided in this case is a prima facie finding which is to be concluded by the material placed before the Court. The findings are tentative. On the basis of the materials placed, the Court shall come to a particular conclusion. Even if this Court is of a different v