CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) WHEN this matter was called, I wrote in the order sheet as follows :"none appears for petitioners. Interim stay granted earlier is vacated. L. C. records may be sent back. "soon after I wrote it, Mr. Naragund, Learned advocate appearing for Sri Appa Rao requested that he may be heard and that he was unable -to come on time due to his presence in another court-hall. He has been heard. Vacating stay is as good as dismissing the revision Petition. Therefore, having heard the learned Counsel, Revision Petition is disposed by the following order. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS suit is for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is agricultural land bearing Survey no. 182 measuring 4 acres 29 guntas situated in Thadibidi village in Gulbarga District. The defendants resisted the prayer in I. A. No. I for interim injunction inter alia contending that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the defendant on 15. 2. 1973 for a consideration of Rs. 16,000/- and having received Rs. 15,500/- towards part payment of consideration, put defendants in possession of the suit land and as such they had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and without plaintiff being in possession, his prayer for interim injunction should be dismissed. ( 3 ) AFFIDAVITS as well as alleged agreement for sale dated 16. 2. 1973 were also produced into court. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Court came to the conclusion that the recital in the agreement for sale was proof of possession having been passed on to the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction. On appeal, the appellate court has set aside the order of the Munsiff and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has approached this court under Section 115 C. P. C. ( 4 ) APPELLATE Court essentially relied upon a decision of this Court reported in I. L. R. 1986 karnataka 171 in which this Court had ruled that a mere recital in the agreement for sale itself would not be sufficient to say that the plaintiff had been in possession of the property because defendants 1 and 2 had denied execution of the agreement for sale. In the instant case, the lower court ought not to have placed reliance on that document to come a prima facie conclusion that the defendant was in possession. ( 5 ) SIMILARLY, the appellate court further relied upon the same decision in regard to the possession of the defendant vis-a-vis section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Munsiff had misconstrued the purpose and purport of Section 53a of the transfer of Property Act. Section 53a of the transfer of Property Act does no more than protect the rights of a person in possession of property in respect of which he has fully or partly performed his obligation and he is put in possession of the property against the claims of owner and all those claiming under him except bona fide purchaser without notice. That section is not attracted to the facts of this case in view of the fact that the agreement for sale itself is in dispute and as already held, possession could not be inferred from such disputed document or the recitals therein. ( 6 ) THE view of the lower appellate Court has been, that matter was a question of fact which ought to be proved on further evidence and then only a decision taken in the course of disposal of the suit and not on affidavits. Having regard to the rival contentions, this Court summoned the records of the lower court to peruse the agreement for sale the execution of which the plaintiff had denied. It is seen from the records that plaintiff has not signed the said agreement of sale. Therefore, if the defendant has not yet established his full rights under the disputed document, he certainly is not entitled to claim the benefit under the document which the appellate Court has rightly refused to extend to the defendant ; the capricious order passed by the Munsiff deserved interference. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons Revision is dismissed. The lower court records will be returned forthwith. --- *** --- .