This is a revision by the plaintiffs against the order by which the appeal of the defendants under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC has been allowed and the order of temporary injunction issued by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs has been vacated.

It is not in dispute that the lands in dispute Khasra No. 308 and 309 of village Bhatigawan, Tahsil Maihar were the ancestral property of two brothers Sudarshan and Sarman. The plaintiffs are heirs of Sudarshan and the defendants No.1 and 2 are sons of Sarman. There had been pm1ition between the two brothers about 50 years ago and the lands in dispute were allotted to the share of Sudarshan. In the revenue papers the lands continued to be recorded in the names of both the brothers.

The plaintiffs' case is that in the partition the lands in dispute were allotted to the share of Sudarshan and these were in his possession and after his death these came in possession of his son Ramkripal. He gave these lands on adhia to the defendants No. 1 and 2 for sometime. That arrangement came to an end and the plaintiffs themselves sowed soyabin crop on these lands in July, 1997. It is alleged that these defendants got the registered sale-deed dated 12.2.1997 executed from Ramkripal in respect of these lands by undue influence and fraud and without payment of any consideration.

The defendants' case is that the lands have been purchased by the defendants No. 1 and 2 from Ramkripal by registered sale-deed dated 12.2.1997 for Rs. 1,40,000/- and there was no undue influence or fraud. They are in possession of the lands and they have sown the crop.

The trial Court issued the order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs as prima facie it was found that the sale-deed appears to be the product of fraud and undue influence and it is without payment of consideration. The consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- stated in the sale-deed was not paid before the Sub-Registrar, but it is mentioned that it had already been received by Ramkripal. The appellate Court has held that the lands are in actual possession of the defendants be it on the basis of sale or adhia and, therefore, their possession must be protected.

After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court could not be interfered with in appeal. The appellate Court has not disturbed the finding of the trial Court that the lands were actually allotted in the partition to Sudarshan more than 50 years ago and after his death these devolved upon his son Ramkripal. These facts were not disputed in appeal. If Ramkripal was Bhumiswami of the lands and these were in his lawful possession there would be presumption of continuity of the said state of affairs. The defendants No. 1 and 2 claim that they purchased the lands from Ramkripal by registered sale-deed dated 12.2.1997 for Rs. 1,40,000/-. This pre-supposes that before the execution of the sale-deed Ramkripal was the owner of the lands. Now the sale-deed on the face of it does not appear to incorporate a genuine transaction of sale. The amount of consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- was admittedly not paid before the sub-Registrar. Such a huge amount could not normally be paid prior to the registration of the sale-deed. This is a very strong circumstance showing that the sale-deed is shrouded in mystery and lends credence to the story of the plaintiffs that it has been obtained from Ramkripal by undue influence and fraud and without payment of consideration. The view taken by the trial Court in this respect was quite reasonable. If the sale transaction is found to be prima facie spurious the same would not confer any right or title on the defendants No.1 and 2. The lands would be presumed to be of the Bhumiswami rights of the plaintiffs and also in their lawful possession. The defendants No.1 and 2 were prima-facie for sometime in possession of these lands with the permission of Ramkripal. The arran