consideration the evidence of DW.1, who has admitted in his cross-examination that as on the date of recording of his evidence, the plaintiffs were running shops as shown in Ex.P4. On perusal of Ex.P4, the photograph, the first Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the sheds put-up by the plaintiffs are apparently new one. Both the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have relied on the representation dated 08.08.2005 marked at Ex.D4, which was given by the plaintiffs to the defendant regarding vacating of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, it has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit schedule properties as on date of filing of the suits i.e. on 11.10.2005. The plaintiffs have come into possession of the suit schedule properties pursuant to obtaining the temporary injunction from the Court, after which, they have put-up sheds in the suit schedule properties. Hence, it has held that putting up of sheds pursuant to obtaining the temporary injunction would not term the plaintiffs to be in a settled possession over the suit schedule properties. On these grounds, the first Appellate Court found favour with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed the same for the reason that the plaintiffs were
