Presumption of correctness under Section 117 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, applies only to entries required to be made under the Code or its rules. Temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1(c), Civil Procedure Code, can only be granted to a plaintiff to prevent dispossession or injury to property in dispute.

S.K. Seth, J.

1. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit (C. S. No. 14-A of 1983) for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class II, Satna. According to the plaintiffs, pursuant to partition of joint ancestral lands between the common ancestors of the parties, the suit lands had fallen to the share of Badri and Brijbhushan and the remaining lands had fallen to the share of Ramnivas. On the death of Badri and Brijbhushan, the suit lands had devolved on Suryadeen, Shyamsunder and Ramsunder and, thereafter, as a result of partition between the said persons, they finally devolved on the plaintiffs. On the other hand, after the death of Ramni was, the other lands had devolved on his widow Sarmania and after her death the said lands devolved on defendants Nos. 1 to 11.

2. According to the further case of the plaintiffs-petitioners, though the suit lands had devolved on them in the manner as stated above, and they continued to be in possession of the same since then, the names of defendants-respondents came to be wrongly recorded as Bhumiswami of the said lands in the land records in 1975-1976 due to some mistake. According to the plaintiffs, the said mistaken mutation of the names of defendants 1 to 11 as Bhumiswami of the suit lands in the land records did not confer any right, title or interest in respect of the said lands in their favour and that otherwise also even if the defendants had any right, title or interest in the suit lands as alleged, they lost the same by virtue of the plaintiff's adverse possession over the same. It was explained by the plaintiffs that it was since the defendants were threatening to interfere with their possession over the suit lands on the basis of mistaken mutation of their names over the same that it became necessary for them to institute the suit in question for declaration and permanent injunction against them.

3. In their written statement, the defendants-respondents denied the case set up by the plaintiffs-petitioners. It was submitted by them that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit lands and that the said lands were in fact in possession of defendants Ramnihore, Ramnaresh, Rambahori and Jagdish Prasad. It was submitted by them that at the time of settlement of records the lands in question had been recorded in the name of Thakurdas, after the death of Thakurdas the lands came to be recorded in the name of Sarmania and after the death of Sarmania the names of defendants 1 to 11 were mutated over them. It was alleged by them that it was in fact the petitioners who were wrongly trying to interfere with the possession of defendants 2, 6, 8 and 10 over the suit lands.

4. In view of the case set-up by them, the plaintiffs, along with the plaint, made an application Under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit lands until the disposal of the suit. So also, in view of the defence taken by them, the defendants too made a similar application under the said provision for grant of injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with their possession over the suit lands until the disposal of the suit.

5. The trial Court i.e. Second Civil Judge, Class II, Satna vide its order dated 18-3-1988 allowed the application made by the plaintiffs and rejected the one made by the defendants. Accordingly, it, vide the said order, restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit lands until the disposal of the suit. However, in the misc. appeal filed by some of the defendants against the said order Under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Satna vide his order dated 8-4-1988 allowed the said appeal, set aside the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs, and dismissed