passed on restoration application. It is the contention of the defendants that they have filed an application for grant of occupancy rights, but the revenue authorities have only inspected the spot and given the report and even the application filed by the defendants is also not considered by the concerned authorities. When such being the case, both the Courts have taken note of the fact that in order to prove that as on the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the property, not placed any material on record and relying upon the documents of 1962-63, which are marked as Exs.P.6 and 7, claims that the plaintiff has been in possession of the property. When such being the material available on record, when there is no any order of restoration and when there is no any granting of occupancy rights in respect of the defendants also, the plaintiff failed to prove the possession as on the date of the suit and the Court can grant an order of injunction only when the defendants interferes with the possession of the plaintiff and both has to be proved and cardinal principles of possession as well as interference has not been proved and hence the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit for bare injunction and the same has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find
