ORDER Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This is one of those matters where strict logic of law may not do justice to issue which arises out of the suit which is pending. This Court cannot help but recall what the great jurist Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. late Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, comments on the very first page of his book. The Common Law - "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." 2. The petitioner is without parents and the gentleman who is supposed to have adopted her died. She sought an action by way of a suit as a protective measure to safeguard herself from being ousted from the suit premises, otherwise than in accordance with law. The suit premises are partly residential and partly non-residential. In the suit she made a claim to the effect that her father died before she was born. Her mother also died. She was brought up from t he age of ten by one Dr. Kunwar Prakash Sharma. He also died in 1985. The injunction application was opposed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It was contended that the petitioner had no status, that she was not the heir of the aforesaid Dr. Sharma, nor had been adopted by him at any stage. 3. The trial court denied her the temporary injunction and denied her relief from dispossession from the accommodation in dispute. In appeal, before the Second Additional Judge. Saharanpur the order of the trial court was upheld. 4. One aspect needs to be kept in mind that it was a temporary injunction which was being considered pending decision of the suit on merits and in reference to the present controversy two circumstances ought to have been taken into account (a) whether the plaintiff had a prima facie case; and (b) the balance of convenience, if the injunction was granted or denied. 5. Certain aspects raised in her pleadings and while arguing the matter before the two courts below ought to have been considered. The plaintiff had lost both her parents and the question of producing evidence of the parents that she had been given in adoption was not possible. Again her foster parent who had adopted her also was not available for the same reason that her parents were not available. He died in 1985. The plaintiff had lost both her parents and the question of producing evidence of the parents that she had been given in adoption was not possible. Again her foster parent who had adopted her also was not available for the same reason that her parents were not available. He died in 1985. But this alone would not mean that she had not been adopted. The fact that she had resided with her foster parent was an aspect which could not be ignored. 6. On record was evidence that she was married and this marriage was performed by the aforesaid Dr. Kunwar Prakash Sharma. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the present case, while considering the grant of temporary injunction was not the stage to go into the issue whether the petitioner had been legally adopted or not. Wards are brought up but not necessarily in every given occasion by a sanctified legal document. But, this does not mean that children are not adopted. The courts below have approached the issue before them strictly from the angle that the plaintiff has been unsuccessful in proving that she had been legally adopted by the aforesaid Dr. Kunwar Prakash Sharma, now deceased. In the face of the facts that none of her parents were available and her foster parent had also died inevitably, the plaintiff is under a handicap to produce their testimony. 7. This court considers that this matter needs to be remanded back to the trial court so that the trial court may consider afresh the application seeking a temporary injunction upon the factors whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and further, whether the balance of convenience is in her favour in seeking the relief which she has sought i.e. temporary injunction. 8. This Court has given its observations above and there are certain presumptions which the trial court may draw, regard being had to the circumstances that with natural parents not alive: who may have brought up the plaintiff. The evidence which may have been tendered or may be tendered by the plaintiff needs to be considered, as also such presumptions as the trial court may draw as to why the plaintiff had been given away in marriage by her foster parent. The evidence which may have been tendered or may be tendered by the plaintiff needs to be considered, as also such presumptions as the trial court may draw as to why the plaintiff had been given away in marriage by her foster parent. After examining these aspects, the trial court may come to a satisfaction whether upon facts she had beer, adopted by the aforesaid Dr. Kunwar Prakash Sharma, and whether the plaintiff was such a person who was normally residing with the aforesaid Dr. Kunwar Prakash Sharma. This is a problem arising out of human relations and aspects of life when under compulsions children are brought up by persons other than their parents. In given situations the aspects need to be probed with consideration and then the law may be seen in the totality of circumstances. 9. Notices on the petition were dispatched for service on the respondents but no appearance has been entered. 10. In the light of the observations made above the matter is remanded back to the trial court for a decision afresh. The orders dated 18-2-1987 (Annexure 1) and 16-9-1985 (Annexure 2) are quashed. The petition is allowed. There will be no order on costs.