Short Note : 1. According to the petitioner-plaintiff he had purchased certain properties (agricultural lands) and he claims that he has purchased them exclusively and personally for himself and on that assertion it was alleged that the sons, the wife and the daughter-in-law were attempting to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. On this allegation a temporary injunction was sought which was granted ex parte by the trial Court and confirmed after hearing both the parties. Against this order an appeal was preferred which was heard by the lower appellate Court and by the Impugned order the learned Judge set aside the order of in junction passed by the trial Court. Held : It could not be disputed that in a matter of grant of temporary injunction the question of possession on the date of the suit is a very material question which the Court must decide before granting temporary injunction in favour of a party to the litigation. The order of the trial Court only indicates that the trial Court felt that probably the petitioner-plaintiff was in possession. However, the trial Court also has not given a finding about possession of either party on the subject matter of the dispute on the date of the suit. So far as the first appellate Court is concerned it appears that the learned Judge did not even think it necessary to consider the question of possession on the date of the suit and therefore he has not at all referred to that question. Looking to this situation and the fact that the parties to the litigation are father and sons and the question about grant of temporary injunction has to be considered in view of the relationship of parties and also apparently on the finding of exclusive possession of one of the parties on the date of the suit. It appears that both the learned Courts below have not looked to the matter as they should have done and thereby committed material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. Revision allowed. Case remanded.