JUDGMENT : G.S.N. Tripathi, J. This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the order dated 22-5-92 passed by the Civil Judge. Dehradun, where by she has dismissed the application 6-C filed, by the Plaintiffs, for interim injunction. The ad-interim injunction order dated 22-5-92 passed by her was also vacated by this order. 2. The Plaintiffs Sri Pramod Kapoor filed O.S. No. 729 in the court of Civil Judge, Dehradun with a prayer for permanent injunction to retrain the Defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession and occupation of the first floor and ground floor of the property known as St. Asaph Estate, survey No. 3 situate in Landour Cant. masonries, district Dehradun, as specified at the foot of the plaint. 3. St. Asaph Estate, survey No. 3 aforesaid is a house situate in Missourian, district Dehradun, which was admittedly owned by the Defendants. The house has two storeys-ground floor and first floor and is divided in 4 parts Western portion-both first and ground floor is not in dispute. Admittedly it is owned by the Defendant No. 1 (first floor) and Defendant No. 3 (ground floor) is not in dispute. The eastern portion-both ground and first floor is alone in dispute. Ground floor is owned by the Defendant No. 2 and the first floor is owned by the Defendant No. 3. 4. It is alleged that the Defendant No. 1 in his capacity as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family consisting of all the Defendants, agreed to sell the western side first floor on 10th July, 89 and received Rs. 1 lakh as consideration. Re delivered the vacant possession to the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 3 on the same date agreed to transfer his western portion ground floor to the Plaintiff for Rs 1 Lakh. He received the entire consideration on the same date and handed over vacant possession to the Plaintiff. Thus the Plaintiff is in possession over the western portion of the house-both ground floor as well as the first floor. 5. With regard to the disputed property (eastern side) both ground floor and the first floor which alone is in dispute, the allegations of the Plaintiff are that the Defendant No. 1 on behalf of all the Defendants wrote and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 10-7-89 in these words: 1. 5. With regard to the disputed property (eastern side) both ground floor and the first floor which alone is in dispute, the allegations of the Plaintiff are that the Defendant No. 1 on behalf of all the Defendants wrote and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 10-7-89 in these words: 1. We hereby agree that in the event of decision to sell the property situated at Saint Asaph, Survey No. 3, Landour Cantonment, masonries, Uttar Pradesh We confirm that the first opportunity to refuse purchase of the said property would be given to each other. 2. That the written refusal must be communicated to either party within 6 months of notice for intention to sell the said property. 3. That consideration for the said property shall be for the mutually agreed price prevailing at the time of intention to sell. Similarly there was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to transfer the eastern ground floor by the Defendant No. 2 dated 10-7-89 who on her behalf as well as an attorney of the Defendant No. 3, agreed to sell it. The Memorandum of Understanding as signed was as under: 1. We hereby agree that in the event of decision to sell the property situate at Saint Asaph. Survey No 3, Landour Cant, masonries, Uttar Pradesh we confirm that the first opportunity to refuse purchase of the said property would be given to each other. 2. That the written refusal must be communicated to either party within 6 months of notice for intention to sell the said property. 3. That consideration for the said property shall be on the mutually agreed price prevailing at the time of intention to sell. Thus the possession over the western non-disputed portion was admittedly handed over to the Plaintiffs in pursuance of the agreement deed and possession over the eastern disputed portion was also allegedly handed over to the Plaintiffs in pursuance of the Memorandum of Understanding as noted above the status of the Plaintiffs is that of a licensee. Both the Plaintiffs are brothers. They are commonly and jointly enjoying possession over the entire house this way ever since 10-7-89. The Plaintiffs have also incurred expenses in carrying out the repairs of the disputed property and the licence has thus become coupled with a grant and agreement to transfer the property finally to the Plaintiffs. 6. Both the Plaintiffs are brothers. They are commonly and jointly enjoying possession over the entire house this way ever since 10-7-89. The Plaintiffs have also incurred expenses in carrying out the repairs of the disputed property and the licence has thus become coupled with a grant and agreement to transfer the property finally to the Plaintiffs. 6. There is only one approach road and for all practical purposes this is a compact house of one entity. With regard to, the Western portion the Defendants have not fulfilled their part of the contract and a suit is pending for specific performance. 7. Regarding the eastern disputed portion the Defendants have threatened to dislodge the Plaintiffs unlawfully and without taking recourse to law and therefore, this suit was filed for the reliefs aforesaid. 8. The Defendants in their written statement have broadly admitted that the Plaintiffs are in possession over the western portion of the house in pursuance of the agreements to sell in their favour. With regard to the eastern side (she disputed portion) the ownership vests in Defendants 2 and 4 only. These portions are fully furnished and have all along been under lock and key of Defendant Nos. 2 and 4. They, have also their Chowkidar to look after the same, who lives in the servant quarter of this property. All the Defendants have their separate and independent interest with regard to the property in their possession. They are legally full owners of their portions and the question of the Defendant no, 1 being Karta and representative of all the Defendants does not arise. All the Defendants are major There is no Joint Hindu Family as alleged by the Plaintiffs. There was never any agreement, much less any Memorandum of Understanding with regard to transfer of the eastern portion Never possession was delivered to the Plaintiffs in respect of this portion. There was never any contract to transfer the eastern portion to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were never given the first option to purchase the eastern portion. The status of the Plaintiffs with regard to the eastern portion is that a rank trespasser. They have not carried out any repairs, nor were they permitted to do so. During the absentee of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs committed trespass over the eastern portion of the disputed house. The status of the Plaintiffs with regard to the eastern portion is that a rank trespasser. They have not carried out any repairs, nor were they permitted to do so. During the absentee of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs committed trespass over the eastern portion of the disputed house. The Defendants 1 and 3 are not necessary parties to the preset suit, as they have no concern with the disputed property. 9. Along with the suit, the Plaintiff filed an application for interim injunction, which is 6C. The allegations are the same as noted above in the plaint. They sought an interim relief to restrain the Defendants from interfering in their possession. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned lower court dismissed the application for interim injunction. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the Plaintiffs. 11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length at the stage of admission on merits as well with their consent. There fore, this appeal is being finally decided by this order. 12. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has advanced two-fold arguments. Firstly, he has urged that the status of the Plaintiffs is that of licensees coupled with giant and in pursuance of a Memorandum of Understanding, as noted above. So without revoking the licence and taking recourse to legal process, the Plaintiff cannot be ejected forcibly. Secondly, taking the worst case that the Plaintiffs are rank trespassers, but since they are in settled position for over 6 months, therefore, even their possessions deserves to be protected and they cannot be ejected without taking recourse to legal process. In this connection he has mentioned the suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, admittedly filed by the Defendants, is pending in the lower court. 13. As against it, learned Counsel for the Respondents has urged that the status of the Plaintiffs was never that of licensees. The alleged Memorandum of Understanding has not been established. So they are rank trespassers and their possession can be disturbed by the true owner even without taking recourse to legal process. Again it has been urged that the relief of injunction is a discretionary relief. It cannot be granted in favour of a trespasser as it will legalise his possession over the disputed property. 14. So they are rank trespassers and their possession can be disturbed by the true owner even without taking recourse to legal process. Again it has been urged that the relief of injunction is a discretionary relief. It cannot be granted in favour of a trespasser as it will legalise his possession over the disputed property. 14. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the contentions advanced by them. 15. Lest it be misunderstood, as we are going to touch the facts of the case, we want to make it clear that no observation made in the body of this judgment shall bind the learned trial court while deciding the case finally on merits Whatsoever observations are made, their fate shall remain confined to the disposal of this appeal alone. 16. Taking the first leg of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Plaintiffs are licensees, we find that there is no force in this contention. 17. The Defendants even according to the Plaintiffs have dealt with the Plaintiffs in a business like manner when they entered into agreements with regard to the transfer of western position of the disputed house (both floors) on 10-7- 89, they executed agreement deeds, they exacted the entire sale price in cash/drafts and then only they delivered possession to the Plaintiffs over the western portion. 18. The same Defendants are alleged to have transferred the possession of the eastern portion without even a touch of paper. They did not receive nor demanded the sale consideration from the Plaintiffs. What a noble change of heart? It was not after lapse of years after years, but on the same fateful day i.e. 10-7-89. It is difficult to reconcile these two sorts of contractual behaviour on the part of the Defendants. The Defendants are not related to the Plaintiffs. They have had no earlier terms with them. There is no ground to believe that they have had cordial relations or relations of mutual trust with the Plaintiffs. Rather, their conduct on the same day displayed that they were working like businessmen with regard to their property dealings with Plaintiffs. So at this stage it is difficult to believe that the Defendants would have delivered actual and physical possession over the eastern portion of the house to the Plaintiffs without receiving any sale consideration or without entering into an agreement for sale. So at this stage it is difficult to believe that the Defendants would have delivered actual and physical possession over the eastern portion of the house to the Plaintiffs without receiving any sale consideration or without entering into an agreement for sale. Prima facie the theory advanced by the Plaintiffs does not appear to be convincing. 19. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellants has urged that the case of the Plaintiffs may be treated to be at worst an arguable case but unfortunately we do not accept even this contention of the learned Counsel. 20. The learned Counsel has urged that the approach road is common. The main gate is common. Therefore, the Defendants parted with possession, over the disputed portion also to the Plaintiffs. We do not consider these factors are sufficient to convince us that the Defendants would have delivered actual possession to the Plaintiffs on 10-7-89. So never any licence was created in favour of the Plaintiffs, much less a licence coupled with grant or an agreement to transfer the property at a subsequent date. 21. Another frailty of this argument is that even the price of the disputed property was not fixed. It was to be fixed at a future date. Even then without fixing the property value and price, the Plaintiffs want this Court to believe that the Defendants would have delivered possession to them unconditionally It is difficult to accept this contention. 22. Annexure CA-VIII-B, page 44 filed by the Defendant-Respondents is a letter dated 3-8-90 written by the Plaintiff to Smt. Savita Amin from New Delhi. In paragraphs 1 and 2 the allegations are that the disputed property has been allegedly agreed to be sold to third persons by the Defendants Nos. 2 and 4. The insistence is that as per Memorandum of understanding the Defendants were obliged to sell the property to the Plaintiffs alone. There is an inherent threat that the consequence of breach of Memorandum of Understanding may bring legal consequence. But significantly enough, it has not been mentioned that on 10-7-89 itself possession over the disputed portion had been delivered by the Defendants No. 2 and 4 to the Plaintiffs and the latter were enjoying the same without any disturbance. Had it been a fact that possession had been delivered on 10-7-89, the Plaintiffs would not have failed to mention this fart in this letter 23. Had it been a fact that possession had been delivered on 10-7-89, the Plaintiffs would not have failed to mention this fart in this letter 23. Annexure CA-VIII-C, page 47 is a letter dated 11-8-89 written by one Indra Prakash to the Defendant that the Plaintiffs have put their locks on the portion belonging to the Defendants. They have also removed their name plates from the gate. This is by way of information to the Plaintiffs A similar letter Annexure CA-VIII-D page 49 dated 17-8-90 was written by Mohar Singh who is said to be a care taker and Chowkidar on behalf of the Defendants. He has informed that the Plaintiffs have put their locks on the eastern portion of the Kothi. The name pate from the common gate has been thrown away by them and their own board has replaced it. When the applicant objected to it, he was snubbed and threatened. In such circumstances he was sending the information to the landlords. No doubt at a later date an affidavit was procured from this Chowkidar by the plain-tiffs wherein this document has been negated, we are not going to examine the veracity of either of the documents. Suffice it to say that at the earliest opportunity and in sequence of the events that were taking place, the letter, page No. 49 was sent by Mohar Singh. At this very juncture it will be relevant to note that the Defendants are residents of Baroda, Gujarat, whereas the property is situate at Mussoorie, district Dehradun, Uttar Pradesh so the absence of the landlords and the landladies was a tempting opportunity to induce the Plaintiffs to take possession over the property in dispute in an unlawful manner. 24. Annexure CA-VIII-I, page 61 is the letter written by Smt. Savita Amin, Defendant No. 2 to Sri Indra Prakash In it, it has been complained that an information has been received that the Plaintiffs have removed the Defendants "name plates" and put their additional locks on the doors on the eastern side of the property. The following words are relevant: What their intentions, are, but they have no right to do such thing....We have not sold right side of two flats to anybody. We have asked our friends to use, maintain and look after the property so there is no encroachment. The following words are relevant: What their intentions, are, but they have no right to do such thing....We have not sold right side of two flats to anybody. We have asked our friends to use, maintain and look after the property so there is no encroachment. Mohar Singh also wrote to us about the removal of name plate and putting additional Jocks on our doors. Please reassure and tell him that he should not worry about his job, even if Kapoors do not need him, we will pay his salary and he will continue as our Chowkidar.... The letter further indicates that the landlords were expected to arrive at Mussoorie on 11- 9-90. 25. The relevancy of this document is that it clearly shows that a letter was received from Mohar Singh by the landlady Savita Amin complaining about the encroachment made by the Plaintiffs. The landlady immediately objected to it and re-asserted her title end possession over the disputed portion. 26. Annexure CA-VIII-J, page 63, is another letter written by Mohar Singh to Smt Nandita Amin alleging that the Plaintiffs had encroached upon the property and on objections they bad threatened the Chwkidar of dire consequences. The letter was sent by registered post vide page No. 66. 27. Annexure CA-VIII-1, page 68 is a letter dated 25-8-90 written by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 2, wherein it has been alleged that one Mr. Adlakha posed himself to be a purchaser from the Plaintiffs and wanted to interfere and take possession, He was turned out The letter reminds the landlady about the Memorandum of Understanding and emotional touch of the Plaintiffs for this house. But conspicuously enough, the letter does not say that the Plaintiffs were already in possession over the disputed property in pursuance of the Memorandum of Understanding. 28. So is the case with letter Annexure CA VIII-M, page 71 dated 31-8-90 written by the Plaintiff to Smt. Savita Amin with the same insistence and reminder with regard to the disputed property. At page 72 these words are important; We will never resent use of your side of the property by any of your friends or relatives. They will in fact be our honoured guests. Here also an important fact is missing that the Plaintiffs were already in possession. 29. At page 72 these words are important; We will never resent use of your side of the property by any of your friends or relatives. They will in fact be our honoured guests. Here also an important fact is missing that the Plaintiffs were already in possession. 29. Annexure CA-VIII-N, page 74 is the letter dated 22-9-90 written by Smt. Savita Amin to the Plaintiff no 1. This was after her visit to Mussoorie In paragraph 2 of this letter there is a complaint by the landlady that the Plaintiffs had consisted to commit breach of agreement and bad continued to indulge into illegal activity. There is also a complaint that illegally power had been drawn from her meter. Than there was a Complaint about the construction of water tank in such a manner that her supply was badly disrupted. So the water supply in the portion of the landlady had been disrupted by the Plaintiffs. This was alleged to be a deliberate act on the part of the Plaintiffs to use and cause inconvenience to the landlady. Then these words are very very important. I am also sorry to state that you had unauthorisedly and without my consent placed locks on my property which I had locked by putting my own locks. These documents prima facie show that some times in August-September, 1990 the Plaintiffs unauthorisedly and illegally committed trespass over the property of the Defendants by taking advantage of their absence from the spot. The Plaintiffs had the privilege to do so because they had been inducted into the western portion through agreements for sale by some of the Defendants but over the eastern disputed portion the Plaintiffs were never given possession. So the question of creation of a licence in their favour by the Defendants did not arise. 30. The Plaintiffs, have also urged that, they have paid electricity bills for the disputed portion also. We have already concluded earlier that the absence of the Defendants tempted the Plaintiffs to commit criminal trespass over the entire property. They started drawing power from the matter of the Defendants. They put their locks upon this property of the Defendants without their permission and several such acts of removing the name plates and other activities of the Plaintiffs were glaringly demonstrating as to what was their conduct and what was their intention. They started drawing power from the matter of the Defendants. They put their locks upon this property of the Defendants without their permission and several such acts of removing the name plates and other activities of the Plaintiffs were glaringly demonstrating as to what was their conduct and what was their intention. All these documents clearly go to show that the allegations of the Plaintiffs that they got possession as licencees on 10-9-89 cannot convince a normal and prudent man they are figments of lies. They are accordingly rejected. 31. Even this allegations of the Plaintiffs that they have beep paying house tax and electricity bills for the entire portion does not carry weight. Paper No. 19A1 to 24A1 are the electricity bills showing that the payments have been made by the Defendants. Paper No 25A1 the 37A1 are the house tax receipts showing that the bills have been paid by the Defendants. 32. Retracted affidavit of Mohar Singh has been filed whereby he has denied that he never sent letters informing about the criminal trespass committed by the Plaintiffs. Suffice it to say that when this affidavit is read in the context of other documents referred to above, it will simply show that by show of force and by administering threats this retracted information in the shape of the affidavit has been procured by the Plaintiffs. The learned lower court has rightly refused to place reliance upon this spurious document. 33. It is not disputed that all the 4 Defendants are owners of their individual portions absolutely. So the question of some body representing as Karta of the Defendants does not arise. 34. In order to support the case of licence coupled with a grant/an agreement to sell, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs has urged that the Plaintiffs have raised constructions of permanent nature. This is far from truth. The name plates have been removed and Plaintiffs have surreptitiously drawn power from the meter of the Defendants. There is no evidence of any construction of permanent nature raised by them. 35. Much stress has been placed upon the Memorandum of Understanding. This is far from truth. The name plates have been removed and Plaintiffs have surreptitiously drawn power from the meter of the Defendants. There is no evidence of any construction of permanent nature raised by them. 35. Much stress has been placed upon the Memorandum of Understanding. Suffice it to say, that not only prices have not been settled, even a decision has to be taken as to whether the property would be said or not Therefore, in the absence of these two important things, it is difficult to believe that the owners of the eastern portion will deliver possession to the Plaintiffs without seeking any return from them by way of consideration. 36. This way it is clear that the Plaintiffs are not licensees much less licences coupled with grant in pursuance of Memorandum of Understanding. The question of revoking any licence did not arise as the Plaintiffs are the rank trespassers. 37. Now only the second point needs to be considered as to whether as a rank trespassers the Plaintiffs can be allowed to defend their possession and the court should grant any equitable relief of injunction in the it favour in order to not only legalise but also formalise their possession as such. 38. There are two types of trespassers recongised in law. The first type is a case of person in whose favour there has been a valid granted licence or lease but it has expired and the grantee continues in possession despite cessation of licence granted or lease in his favour Law does not permit the owner-lessor or grantor to take forcible possession because law requires that recourse should be taken to law courts. 39. There is another types of trespasser. His possession does not start under a legal origin rather it starts from the very beginning in the shape of a criminal trespass. Law does not protect this type of trespassers' possession. 40. We can quote here from the judgment of this very court in the case of Shiv Nath v. District Judge. Nainital (1991) 1 CRC 575, decided by Hon'ble R.A. Sharma, J. on 14-12-90. At page 578 the following observations occurred: In, this connection distinction has to be made between the trespasser whose possession right from the beginning was unlawful and a person who entered into possession lawfully, but later on account of subsequent developments, his possession became unlawful. Nainital (1991) 1 CRC 575, decided by Hon'ble R.A. Sharma, J. on 14-12-90. At page 578 the following observations occurred: In, this connection distinction has to be made between the trespasser whose possession right from the beginning was unlawful and a person who entered into possession lawfully, but later on account of subsequent developments, his possession became unlawful. In the latter category of cases where the possession was initially valid, but subsequently became unlawful, courts have laid down that possession of such a person though not "lawful possession" is "judicial possession" and is entitled to be protected by the courts. 41. In the case of Yashwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh 1968 (1) SC 620, the defence case was that the Plaintiff had failed to pay revenue and their right had been extinguished u/s 82 of the Qanoon Ryotwari in this context the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the lessor could not be allowed to take forcible possession. The reason was allarent. The original Plaintiffs possession was initially valued but he was holding over even after the term of his tenancy had come to an end. This case obviously does not help the Plaintiffs. 42. Reference has been made to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rattan and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 188 . This was a case under the Indian Penal Code before their lordships Right of private defences had been pleaded. The accused had proved that they had been in settled possession for more than 6 months. There upon the complainant side tried to dislodge them and Marpit took place. In that case their lordships observed as follows: A true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser while the trespasser is in the act or process of trespassing, and has not accomplished his' possession but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies available under the law. In such circumstances the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies available under the law. While it may not be possible to lay down a rule of universal application as to when the possession of a trespasser becomes complete and accomplished, yet, one of the tests is to find out who had grown the crops on the land in dispute. Certainly this observation do not help the Plaintiffs any more. 43. Reliance has been placed on another ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), by his Lrs. Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131 There also it was found that the possession of the restaurant was given with the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff. The trial court had found (paragraph 6) that the Plaintiffs possession at its inception was lawful. The High Court found (paragraph 7) that although the agreements were termed as licence they were really sub-leases and hence the possession of the Plaintiff even after the period of licence was not in any way unlawful or without authority or law. In paragraph 9 reference has been made to a trespasser who had been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner..........she had entered into the possession of the restaurant business and the premises where it was conducted as licensee and in due course of law. 44. In this state of facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that such a licensee/lessee should not be dislodged without taking recourse to law courts. 45. Reliance has been placed in the case of Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Bangalore City Corporation AIR 1986 Karn 194. This was a case of tenant holding over He was dislodge forcibly by the landlord. An injunction was granted in favour of such a victim of atrocities perpetrated by the landlord this case does not help the Plaintiffs any more. 46. Similarly in the case of Bhola Nath v. Maharao Raja Saheb Bundi State AIR 1984 All. 69, the Plaintiff was continuing in possession even after the efflux of stipulated period. His possession was protected by law courts. 47. 46. Similarly in the case of Bhola Nath v. Maharao Raja Saheb Bundi State AIR 1984 All. 69, the Plaintiff was continuing in possession even after the efflux of stipulated period. His possession was protected by law courts. 47. in view of the legal position that emerges now is that law courts have expressed their loath and disapproved the possession of a person who is a rank trespasser i.e. a person whose possession had no lawful origin. 48. The latest Allahabad decision in the case of Shiv Nath v. District Judge (Supra) lays down the correct legal position that the possession of a rank trespasser should not be recognised by the law courts in the face of a dispute between him and the true owners. The Hon'ble Single Judge has analysed the legal position with great care and labour. We find ourselves in total agreement with the view taken by the Hon'bie Single Judge of this Court. 49. Now once it is established that the Plaintiffs are rank trespassers, they committed breach of faith and surreptitiously and unlawfully took possession over the eastern disputed portion taking undue advantage of the Defendant's absence from Mussonie and their residence in Baroda. Gujarat, it can be easily said that law should not encourage such unlawful activities as induldged in by the Plaintiffs. It is also clear that the Plaintiffs have No. prima facie case against the Defendants. 50. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the Defendants. They are the owner of the property. They have been illegally dislodged by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs even admittedly did not allege to have passed any consideration for their unlawful possession. Here is a case in which the lawful owner is being deprived his right to enjoy his own property. If the Plaintiffs are dislodged, they are going to lose nothing, in law. At best, there shall be a case of "damnum sine injuria". So no question of legal balance being in their favour arises. Whereas the lawful owners shall always be protected by law courts. Therefore, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Defendants who have been deprived of their right to use their own property. 51. As regards the next consideration of irreparable loss, we find that Plaintiffs are not going to lose, anything except their unlawful and illegal benefits. Whereas the lawful owners shall always be protected by law courts. Therefore, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Defendants who have been deprived of their right to use their own property. 51. As regards the next consideration of irreparable loss, we find that Plaintiffs are not going to lose, anything except their unlawful and illegal benefits. Whereas the Defendants, who are true owners of the property have been dislodged If they are allowed to litigate for years, which is a natural course these days, their loss will be irreparable. 52. On this consideration also the Plaintiff's application 'has been rightly dismissed. 53. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, we find no force in this appeal. It deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs.