Short Note : 1. The material facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are as follows: The plaintiff-appellant has instituted a suit against the respondent for declaration of his title to the suit land for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit land. The plaintiff also filed an application for grant of a temporary injunction. The application was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. The learned trial Judge, by his impugned order, has rejected the application for temporary injunction submitted by the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff has, therefore, preferred this appeal. Held: Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is not disputed that the plaintiff and the defendant are brothers, that the suit land was their ancestral property and that the suit land was being: cultivated by both the brothers. The plaintiff's case was that the, suit land was sold to him by his father. At this stage it would not be proper to express any opinion on the merits of the case, but the finding of the learned trial Judge that the plaintiff had failed to prove his exclusive possession over the suit land on the date of the institution of the suit does not appear to be vitiated by any error of law or fact. In this view of the matter, the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction submitted by the plaintiff appellant. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with that order.