M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the lower appellate court's order made in misc. Appeal No. 47/1990 on the file of the principal civil judge, bijapur. The order is dated 15th december, 1990. ( 2 ) REVANASIDDAYYA was the plaintiff in o. s. no. 426/1990 on the file of the principal munsiff, bijapur. He filed the said suit seeking declaration of title to the temple virupaksha and further that the defendant-trustees of a trust- known as shankarling devastan panch committee and its officers or men should be restrained from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of virupaksha devaru temple which was his private temple. ( 3 ) IN support of his prayer, the plaintiff has produced numerous documents among which most important were the sanad granted by the secretary of state for India in council through the collector, bijapur, a sanad recognising the father of the plaintiff as the vahiwatdar of the temple. He also produced among other documents, a certified copy of the register of public trust of the defendant-committee which came into existence only in the year 1942 as evidenced by that document. He had also promptly replied to a notice issued by the secretary of the defendant- committee that he was not liable to be dismissed as the poojari as he was the owner of the temple and it was a private property and that be was not an employee. Despite these intrinsic and clinching evidence of his possession and title, the trial court refused to grant the temporary injunction mainly on the ground that the balance of convenience was with the defendant-committee if the injunction was refused, ignoring the evidence on record. ( 4 ) THE lower appellate court after perusing the documents produced and hearing the parties and the counsel, came to the conclusion that the order of the munsiff was capricious inasmuch as it was not based on any evidence at all and it also came to the conclusion that it was perverse, that it was contrary to the documents produced before him. The defendant-committee never produced a scrap of paper to prove that virupaksha devaru temple had ever vested in the trust by any procedure known to law. In any event, that would be a matter which should be gone into as one of the main issues in the suit itself. The defendant-committee never produced a scrap of paper to prove that virupaksha devaru temple had ever vested in the trust by any procedure known to law. In any event, that would be a matter which should be gone into as one of the main issues in the suit itself. But as long as control and possession of the temple and its properties was concerned there was clear admission on the part of the defendant-committee : that plaintiff as the poojari was in possession and control. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the balance of convenience was certainly with the plaintiff and if he continued as vahiwatdar or as poojari no harm would come to the committee and question of devotees not being permitted to offer worship would ever arise. Even on that ground, the trial court was clearly in error in holding that the balance of convenience was in favour of the committee. ( 6 ) IF the plaintiff had acted as a owner for a number of years, heavens would not have fallen if he continued in possession with the aid of the injunction of the court. ( 7 ) THERE is no merit in this revision petition. no error of jurisdiction is pointed out in the exercise of the discretion by the lower appellate court in reversing the findings of the trial court in regard to grant of temporary injunction. ( 8 ) THE petition is, therefore, dismissed. --- *** --- .