JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - It appears that one Smt. Liaqe Begum alias Allah Bandi was tenure holder of ten Kachcha Bighas of land. The plaintiff-respondents, claiming to be the purchasers of nine Bighas of the Said land by virtue of a sale deed dated 23.2.1984, filed a suit against the appellants for an injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession over the land purchased by them. The appellants claim to be the purchasers of the remaining one Bigha land. An application for temporary injunction was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents and has been allowed by the order appealed against. The injunction is only in regard to the nine Bighas of the land purchased by the plaintiffs and not in regard to the one Bigha land purchased by the appellants. The details of the land, which was sold in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and the remaining one Bigha land appears to have been stated in the sale deed itself executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. The appellants being the purchasers of only one Bigha of land are certainly not entitled to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff-respondents over the nine Bighas of the land purchased by them. The trial court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff-respondents were in possession over the nine Bighas of land purchased by them. On these findings, no exception can be taken to the order of temporary injunction appealed against. 2. Counsel for the appellants urged that the land which the plaintiff-respondents claim to have purchased had been declared surplus. We are not expressing any opinion on this submission for even if what has been urged by the counsel for the appellants is correct, the appellants have still no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff-respondents over the said land in case they are in possession, notwithstanding the said land being declared surplus. If really this land has been declared surplus, it will be for the State Government to claim the appropriate relief. 3. In the result we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. a copy of this order may be supplied to the counsel for the appellants on payment of usual charges.