JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r), C.P.C. by the plaintiff-petitioners-appellants (In short plaintiffs) against the order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, 'dated March 29, 1990 rejecting the application of the appellants moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. Along with the plaint for specific performance and injunction, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was filed with the averments, in short, as follows: The fields bearing Khasra No. 294, measuring 8 bighas 1 biswa and No. 295, measuring 4 bigha 7 biswa, situated in the village Begas (tehsil Jaipur), were in the khatedari of defendant No. 7 Chiranji Lal. With his permission, the fields are being cultivated by the plaintiffs for last ten years, the adjacent fields bearing Khasra No. 207 and 216 are in their (plaintiffs') khatedari and there exists a well in the field bearing Khasra No. 207. All these four fields are being irrigated by the water of this well. Their house is also in the fields bearing Khasra No. 294. The defendant No. 7 Chiranjilal agreed to sell his two fields bearing Khasra No. 294 and 295 at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per bigha on June 18, 1985 to them (plaintiffs) and obtained Rs. 3,0001- in advance. It was agreed in between him and plaintiffs that the remaining amount would be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. He further obtained Rs. 10,000/- from them on January 5, 1987. He was repeatedly requested by them to get the sale-deed executed and registered but he did not execute it. On the contrary, he sold his khatedari rights in respect of the field bearing Khasra No. 294, measuring 8 bighas and 1 biswa, through the registered sale-deed dated February 12, 1987 to defendants No. 1 to 6. They (defendants) are trying to dispossess them forcibly from the said field bearing Khasra No. 294. On their reports, the police have registered cases against them (defendants) under Section 107, Cr.P.C. and a challan has also been filed against them under sections 147, 323, 447, 427 and 379, I.P.C. If temporary injunction is not granted, their suit would become in-fructuous, great complications would arise, the balance of convenience is in their favour and the would suffer irreparable loss. 3. 3. Defendants No. 1 to 6 seriously opposed the application. In their reply, they have averred that the defendant No. 7 Chiranjilal has executed a sale-deed in their favour selling his khatedari rights in respect of the field bearing khasra No. 294, measuring 8 bighas 1 biswa, after obtaining the entire sale consideration and he has duly delivered its possession and mutation has been effected in their favour. They have traversed almost all the averments of the application. 4. On the request of the plaintiff-appellants, an Advocate was appointed as a commissioner by the trial court to report whether at the site signs exist regarding irrigation of the field bearing Khasra No. 294 by the water of the well situated in the plaintiff's field bearing Khasra No. 207 and whether the said fields are in the plaintiff's possession and cultivation. The commissioner submitted his report. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Judge dismissed the defendants' application by his order under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants contended that the learned District Judge did not properly consider the various reports of the police and also of the commissioner while reaching the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima fade case in their favour. He further contended that it is well-established from the material on record that the plaintiff-appellants were and are in possession of the fields bearing Khasra No. 294 and 295. He lastly contended that the learned trial court seriously erred to dismiss the application of the plaintiffs even for the field bearing Khasra No. 295 which has not been purchased by the defendants and in respect of which the defendants have not contested. 6. Admittedly, the defendant-respondents have purchased the field bearing khasra No. 294, measuring 8 bighas and 1 biswa, only from the defendant No. 7 Chiranjilal. They have not purchased the field bearing Khasra No. 295 measuring 4 bighas 7 biswas & they have not opposed the plaintiff's case in respect of the field bearing Khasra No. 295. The defendant Chiranjilal (khatedar) has not put his appearance and contested the application for temporary injunction. As such the appeal deserves to be allowed so far as the field bearing Khasra No. 295 is concerned. 7. There is no force in the appeal so far as it relates to the field bearing Khasra No. 294, measuring 8 bighas and 1 biswa. As such the appeal deserves to be allowed so far as the field bearing Khasra No. 295 is concerned. 7. There is no force in the appeal so far as it relates to the field bearing Khasra No. 294, measuring 8 bighas and 1 biswa. Admittedly, it has been purchased by the defendants from the Khatedar Chiranjilal (defendant No. 7) through registered sale-deed dated February 12, 1987 for Rs. 28,000/-. Mutation has been effected in their favour. The plaintiffs' case is that they are in possession of the fields bearing Khasra No. 294 and 295 for last ten years.' No 'Ante Litem Motum' (before the controversy arose) document has been filed by the plaintiffs in support of their case. All the documents which they have filed relate to the period subsequent to the dispute. They have not even filed any receipt showing the payment of land revenue through them in respect of these fields. Their case is that they had paid Rs. 13,000/- (Rs. 3000/- + Rs. 10,000) to the khatedar Chirajnilal (defendant No. 7) in pursuance of the oral agreement which took place in between them for the sale of the land of the said Khasra Nos. 294 and 295. They admit that no receipt of the payment was obtained from Chiranjilal. The commissioner has reported that no sign existed at the site indicating that the field bearing Khasra No. 294 was irrigated by the water of the well situated in the plaintiffs' field bearing Khasra No. 207. It has been held in M. Kallappa Setti v. M.B. Laxmi Narain, AIR 1972 SC 2299 at page 2300 para 5 , that the plaintiff can on the strength of his possession resist interference from persons who have no better title than himself to the suit property. Admittedly, the defendant- respondents have better title in respect of the field bearing Khasra No. 294 as they have purchased it from its khatedar Chiranjilal (defendant No. 7) through the registered sale-deed dated February 12, 1987 and mutation has been effected in their favour. On the contrary, the plaintiff-appellants have no right, title or interest in it except alleged possession. The learned District Judge has rightly observed that the defendants would suffer an irreparable injury if injunction is granted and the balance of convenience is also in their favour. 8. In view of these facts and circumstances. On the contrary, the plaintiff-appellants have no right, title or interest in it except alleged possession. The learned District Judge has rightly observed that the defendants would suffer an irreparable injury if injunction is granted and the balance of convenience is also in their favour. 8. In view of these facts and circumstances. it cannot be said that the learned District Judge erred in rejecting the application of the plaintiff-appellants moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. so far as it related to the field bearing Khasra No. 294. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Application for interim injunction so far as it relates to the field bearing Khasra No. 295 measuring 4 bighas 7 biswas is allowed. The order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District is modified to this extent.Allow Partly Allowed. *******