ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

2. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the appellate Court whereby modifying the order passed by the trial Court rejection of his application under Order 39 Rule 1 & of the CPC for issuance of temporary injunction has been maintained and the rejection of application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC preferred by defendants has been set aside and the said application has been allowed.

3. The plaintiff contends that in a family partition effected in the family fifty years ago the suit lands had fallen to the share of Late Ambji, predecessor in interest of defendants. He had been in possession of the same since then as owner and after his death the defendants have been the owners thereof. On 25.11.2004 the defendants had entered into an agreement with him for sale of suit lands in his favour for a consideration of Rs.80,000/- upon payment of the entire sale consideration. Possession of the suit lands was also delivered to the plaintiff. He continued to demand execution of the sale deed from defendants but they have been refusing to do so. The plaintiff has been in possession of the suit lands for past sixteen years and has even otherwise acquired title thereto by virtue of adverse possession. The defendants are however, forcibly attempting to dispossess him from the suit lands.

4. On such contentions the plaintiff has instituted an action for specific performance of contract dated 25.11.2005 from the defendants and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit lands. Along with the plaint the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC praying for issuance of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit lands.

5. The defendants contested the application by filing their reply submitting that they have always been in possession of the suit lands and plaintiff has never been in possession thereof. The plaintiff is however, illegally attempting to alter the nature of the suit lands and to create a right of way over the same. The defendants are recorded over the suit lands in the revenue records. The alleged agreement to sale as set up by plaintiff is a forged document. The defendants also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC praying for issuance of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their possession over the suit lands.

6. The trial Court rejected the application for issuance of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendants. In miscellaneous appeals having been preferred by both the parties, while rejection of plaintiff’s application has been maintained, the rejection of application of defendants has been set aside and the said application has been allowed.

7. A perusal of the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below shows that they have considered the entire material brought on record by both the parties. From the same it is evident that the suit lands are recorded in the revenue records in name of the defendants. Though plaintiff has claimed possession over the suit lands under the agreement to sale dated 25.11.2005 but the same is of a period almost 18-19 years ago. The same is deficiently stamped and is not registered. In any case an agreement to sale does not confer any title. Though in the agreement there is a recital of delivery of possession of suit lands to the plaintiff but from the documents available on record particularly the revenue documents it is evident that the defendants have always been recorded over the suit lands. Except for agreement to sale no other document has been produced by the plaintiff to demonstrate his possession over the suit lands.

There is no document to show that he ever c