Short Note : 1. The plaintiffs relied on a sketch map showing certain area by red delineation to be in their possession. In the Khasra, the name of the plaintiffs was also jointly recorded along with the other defendants disclosing that they were in possession to the extent of three-fourth share. 2. On behalf of the defendants it was contended that the original map maintained by the Land Records Department did not contain any such red marking delineating any particular portion to be in the occupation of the plaintiffs The map filed by the plaintiffs with such delineation thus could not be relied for the purposes of recognising their separate possession on a particular portion of the survey number. The marking of a particular area by red lines was an act of the plaintiffs themselves and had no evidentiary value. 3. The lower appellate Court was of the opinion that since from the language of the sale deed it was apparent that what the plaintiffs purchased was the undivided share, there was never any occasion of their being placed in separate exclusive possession of any particular portion of the suit land. In any case, they were entitled to claim partition according to the extent of share purchased by them if the said transaction was found to be a genuine one intended to be acted upon as a real sale. The mutation, which was effected in the year 1976, after a lapse of about 3 years, did not indicate that the plaintiffs were in separate possession of any specific part of the land. The mutation simply indicated the extent of their share which they had purchased from the co-owners. Had there been any partition, the sale-deed itself would have shown the particular portion of the land sought to be sold. Held: In the opinion of this Court, the scope of interference with the orders made by the Courts below in exercise of their discretion in the matter of grant or refusal of temporary injunction being little, no case is made out for interference with the order impugned. The lower appellate Court has relied on certain circumstances and the order impugned could not be shown to be arbitrary or perverse. Even if it would have been possible to take a different view on the facts, it would not be permissible to do so at this stage in revision. The lower appellate Court has relied on certain circumstances and the order impugned could not be shown to be arbitrary or perverse. Even if it would have been possible to take a different view on the facts, it would not be permissible to do so at this stage in revision. Nothing could be shown to infer that the Court below acted with material irregularity while making the order impugned. The order impugned does not suffer with any error of jurisdiction. 4. However, in order to secure the claim of the plaintiffs for mesne profits, in case they happen to succeed, it would be just and proper to direct the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.1,000 every year on or before the 30th of June. Such amount shall be invested in fixed deposits with any Nationalised Bank initially for a term of one year and may be thereafter renewed time to time. In case the plaintiffs succeed, the amount so deposited will become payable to them along with the interest. The said amount will be liable to be adjusted towards the claim of mesne profits as may be ultimately calculated by a competent forum in an appropriate proceeding, if any brought. It is further clarified that the rate of mesne profit at the rate of Rs.1,000 per annum is without prejudice to the right of the respective parties to prosecute and contest the claim of mesne profits and will not come in way of the competent Court in adjudicating the ultimate liability of the parties for mesne profits. If the plaintiff fail, the amount of deposit will go back to the defendants along with interest. Revision partly allowed.