on the land in question being Survey No.246/4, admeasuring 1H 17 R and the said tenancy has been continued since his forefather's time. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared in the Suit and it was their case that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the Defendant Nos.4 and 8 and that they are cultivating the said property. The Defendant Nos.1 to 3 were contending that the said property has been purchased by them by the registered sale deed and at the time of the execution of the sale deed the possession was handed over to them. It was therefore their case that they were in cultivating possession and therefore the Plaintiff had not made out any case for the grant of relief in the Suit. In the said Suit, an application for temporary injunction came to be filed by the Plaintiff which was numbered as Exhibit 5. The same was considered by the Trial Court and though the Trial Court accepted the fact that the revenue entries disclosed the name of the Plaintiff in the possession column. The Trial Court was of the view that since the Plaintiff has failed to get the declaration of his tenancy from the Tenancy Court, his possession could not be protected. The Trial Court, therefore, by its order dated 27.04.2011 rejected the application for temporary injunction.
