JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This is an FAFO against the judgment and order dated 22-9-89 granting temporary injunction in a suit filed by the plaintiff respondents against the defendant appellant alleging that the plaintiffs were owners and their names were mutated in place of one Ram Krishna the recorded tenure holder, and that the plaintiffs have no rights. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants denying the plaint allegations and alleging that the plaintiff had obtained a will from the owner Ram Krishna on 1-3-88 and the application for temporary injunction was filed on the ground that the plaintiffs and their co-sharers were in possession over the land in dispute which contained trees also. Consequently the temporary injunction was granted by the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that there was no evidence filed by the plaintiffs to prove their possession and prima facie title and the court below has not recorded any finding of possession in favour of the plaintiffs, consequently the temporary injunction cannot be granted. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, suffice it to say that the court below has taken into account the Khatauni extracts of 1394 to 1399 Fasli filed by the plaintiffs and in those extracts in place of the deceased Ram Krishna over Khata Nos. 391 and 482 the name of Sharda Prasad, plaintiff No. 2 and one Mool Chand were recorded by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30-5-88. The defendants plaintiffs have filed irrigation slip and the court below has relied upon the Khatauni extracts of 1394 to 1399 in Fasli showing primafacie title of the plaints. A finding has been recorded that the persons recorded in revenue papers must be deemed to have prima facie title and consequently plaintiffs were recorded in revenue papers by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30-5-88. The title plaintiffs and on that basis possession of the plaintiff has been assumed. 5. The temporary injunctions are granted under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil procedure and also under the inherent provisions of Section 151 of the Code. The power to grant temporary injunction is discretionary to be exercised on sound judicial principles. Broadly speaking the object of granting temporary injunctions is to maintain status quo while parties are litigating for their title. The power to grant temporary injunction is discretionary to be exercised on sound judicial principles. Broadly speaking the object of granting temporary injunctions is to maintain status quo while parties are litigating for their title. But at the same time it is not to be lightly. The prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss are the principles to be borne in mind in case injunction is not granted. In respect of prima facie case the court has to satisfy that there is a fair and substantial question to be decided. It is better to refer to an observation of Turner, L.J. in Walker v. Jones, 1865 LR (PC) 50, as follows : "The real point is not how the question ought to be decided at the hearing of the cause, but whether the nature and difficulty of the question is such that it was proper that the injunction should be granted until time for deciding them should arrive." 6. Just prima facie case is not sufficient for granting injunction, but at the same time balance of inconvenience or otherwise causing injury to plaintiff and irreparable loss must also be proved. In matters of immovable property the disturbance of status quo ante results in substantial loss to the plaintiff in possession. This is how the question of possession becomes important. On the basis of revenue papers entries court has held that plaintiff was in possession. Under sub-clause (c) of Rule 1 Order 39, the expression is that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in suit. The expression `cause injury' to the plaintiff has not been explained. In fact, injury means any wrong or damage done to another either in his person, right, reputation or property (See Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edn. page 924). In other words, it connotes an act which harms, hurts or damages. 7. In United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, AIR 1981 SC 1426 it was ruled that in order to obtain relief of temporary injunction the plaintiff must prove that they would be put to an irreparable loss unless an interim injunction was granted. 8. In the present case the court below appears to be conscious about these principles of prima facie case, injury to plaintiff and balance of inconvenience etc. 8. In the present case the court below appears to be conscious about these principles of prima facie case, injury to plaintiff and balance of inconvenience etc. and as some trees were also standing and in case these trees were cut either by the defendants or by the plaintiffs, in that case the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. Under these circumstances, the temporary injunction has been correctly granted restraining the defendants from cutting the trees and from interfering with possession of the plaintiffs and their co-sharers. The court below has not committed any error of law and no interference is required. 9. The present appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.