JUDGMENT The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreements dated 5.5.1986 and 4.4.1986 in respect of the suit lands situated at Lanchi and Bisoni, district Balaghat, alleged to have been executed by the respondent No.1. During the pendency of the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 151 on the ground that the plaintiff was placed in possession of the suit property in consonance with the agreement to sell by the respondent No.1, and as the respondent tried to disturb her possession on 8.12.91. The defendants/respondents entered appearance and has specifically denied execution of agreements or receipt of any consideration. It was contended that the defendants is in possession of the property and, therefore, there is no question of disturbing the possession of the plaintiff/appellant. It was further stated that, on the contrary, the appellant had stolen the crops standing on the defendant's land and, therefore, defendant No.1 lodged reports on 8.12.1991, 18.12.1991 and 19.12.1991 to the police. It was further stated that a registered will dated 7.5.1987 was executed of all the properties of the defendants in favour of Janakram, plaintiff's husband, and, therefore, there was no necessity for executing the alleged agreement to sell. The plaintiff has filed affidavits of witnesses for showing her possession over the suit lands and has also filed Khasra Panchshala for the years 1986 to 1991. It would be pertinent to note here that possession of Janakram and not of the plaintiff is shown in the Khasras filed by the plaintiff. The defendants have also filed affidavits of the witnesses showing their possession and a copy of the will executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff's husband. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that as execution of the agreements and receipt of consideration was denied by the defendant No.1 no reliance could be placed on that agreements for holding that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that as execution of the agreements and receipt of consideration was denied by the defendant No.1 no reliance could be placed on that agreements for holding that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. It was also observed by the trial Court that signatures on the agreements does not inspire confidence, as a bare look shows difference in signatures in the agreements The plaintiff is also not shown to be in possession of the suit lands in the documents and it is also doubtful that when a registered will had been executed on 7.5.1987 in favour of the plaintiff's husband where was the necessity of executing agreements to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff. Janakram, plaintiff's husband, was looking after the property of the defendant No.1 and, therefore, there is a possibility of his name being shown in the Khasras cannot be ruled out. In any case, that does not show possession of the plaintiff over the suit lands. The trial Court, on appreciation of all the circumstances, has held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property nor she had shown a prima facie case in her favour and, therefore, rejected the application for temporary injunction. The present appeal is filed against this order rejecting the application for temporary injunction. On a consideration of the order passed by the trial Court, I find that the order passed is just and legal and does not require any interference by this Court. The trial Court has examined all the aspects which are necessary for consideration of an application for injunction. The plaintiff has completely failed to prove a prima facie case in her favour, nor there is any balance of convenience in her favour. The plaintiff has failed to establish any irrepairable injury being caused to her if no injunction is granted in her favour. The points raised by the plaintiff are all for consideration of the matter on merits. The salient feature is that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and, therefore, no injunction can be granted in her favour. As a result of the discussion above, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee as per schedule