M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate and the learned Advocate who represents the respondents. This is a rather hotly contested litigation in respect of a plot of land namely Survey No. 60/2 measuring 5 acres 26 guntas but the real dispute concerns an area of 2 acres 20 guntas which the respondents claim to have purchased through a sale deed dated 29-10-1979. The plaintiffs case was that for the year 1991-92 the respondents got their names entered in the record of rights in respect of an area of 2 acres 20 guntas in the land and that on coming to know of this, he was required to file a suit and ask for interim relief in respect of the dispute that had arisen. It is the case of the plaintiff that this particular survey number absolutely belongs to him and he denies having alienated the whole or any part of it. The defendants on the other hand contend that the area of 2 acres 20 guntas was sold to them under registered sale deed dated 29-10-1979 and that they have been in possession of that area of the land. One of the contentions taken up by the plaintiff was that he has produced certain documents including a registered Will dated 15-3-1973 as also a school certificate on the basis of which it is his case that his date of birth is 1-6-1963. The issue raised was that assuming without admitting that the agreement was entered into in october 1979, that the plaintiff was most certainly a minor at that point of time and that therefore he was incompetent to convey the property or enter into such a transaction, the result being that the transaction will be a void one. Apart from this, what was sought to be emphasised was that if the land was in fact sold on 29-10-1979, that the entries in the revenue records would most certainly have been changed either in that year or shortly thereafter and that the defendants would not have kept quiet for a period of twelve years and allowed the entries to continue in the plaintiffs name. The Trial Court after a detailed appreciation of the material placed before it granted the injunction as asked for in respect of an area of 3 acres 6 guntas excluding the area of 2 acres 20 guntas which. The Trial Court after a detailed appreciation of the material placed before it granted the injunction as asked for in respect of an area of 3 acres 6 guntas excluding the area of 2 acres 20 guntas which. the defendants claim to be in possession of. The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal and the Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. It is effectively against these orders that the present revision petition has been preferred. ( 2 ) THE principal argument canvassed by Mr. Patil on behalf of the petitioner is that the solitary source of right under which the defendants claim to be either owners or in possession of the property is the sale deed dated 29-10-1979. He states that the plaintiff had pointed out at the earliest stage when the defendants approached the Court that he had not entered into any such transaction and he submits that even assuming the court were to look upon this statement with some degree of doubt, that the sale deed is a void transaction because the plaintiff was more certainly a minor on that date. Secondly, what he emphasises very strongly is that it was only in one year namely 1991-92 that the name of the defendants appeared in the revenue records and he points out that on coming to know of this, the plaintiff has immediately filed an appeal and that the appellate Authority has stayed the order under which the name of the defendants had been entered. He therefore submits that on the basis of the record, both the lower Courts were certainly in error in having refused the relief as far as the area of 2 acres 20 guntas is concerned. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondents, their learned Advocate has challenged the maintainability of this petition. In the first instance, he submits that this is a case where an interim order has been granted by the lower Courts and that such a relief can be granted on the basis of the plaintiff making out a prima facie case. For this purpose, the Court is required to examine the material placed before it, in other words, arrive at a tentative conclusion on the basis of the appreciation of evidence. For this purpose, the Court is required to examine the material placed before it, in other words, arrive at a tentative conclusion on the basis of the appreciation of evidence. Learned advocate submits that the Trial Court has done an elaborate exercise as far as appreciation of the material is concerned and that the view taken by the Trial Court is faultless. He also points out that the appeal Court has reviewed the entire record and has come to the same conclusion and that therefore the record presents a concurrent finding of facts. In this background it is his submission that the revisionary powers of the High Court under Section 115, C. P. C. which are circumscribed to the extent of correcting manifest errors apparent on the record or corrective action in respect of a point of law cannot be invoked as effectively the petitioner is asking this Court to reappreciate the evidence on a third occasion. Learned Advocate has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and Others v Maruti Hari Jadhav and Others, in support of his contention that on the facts of the present proceeding, this revision petition itself is barred in law. The petitioner's learned advocate has refuted this statement because it is his case that there is no question of reappreciation of the evidence but that he has approached this Court on the basis of certain legal errors which have arisen in the record and that therefore, the revision is maintainable. I have heard the two learned Advocates at some length in this regard and there is no difficulty in holding that the revision petition is maintainable because the points raised by the petitioner's learned Advocate undoubtedly are mixed questions of fact and law but basically centre around one principle as to whether the two Courts were justified within the framework of law and the present record in refusing interim reliefs in the special facts and circumstances of this case. ( 4 ) ONE cannot lose sight of the fact that these orders have been passed at a very preliminary stage and that the documents and evidence which the parties will produce are yet to be scrutinised. ( 4 ) ONE cannot lose sight of the fact that these orders have been passed at a very preliminary stage and that the documents and evidence which the parties will produce are yet to be scrutinised. The witnesses are yet to be examined and cross-examined and under these circumstances, it is only a prima facie appraisal that the Courts have done in relation to the material that was on record. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that as far as the area of 3 acres 6 guntas is concerned that there is no difficulty in granting the relief but the courts did face a problem in view of the controversy that was raised in granting a relief as regards the disputed area of 2 acres 20 guntas. Though the Courts have not said so in so many words, they have taken cognisance of the fact that the document on the basis of which the defendants claim a right is a registered sale deed. Certain presumptions do arise in relation to such a document and even though its validity and execution have been seriously attacked, the Courts cannot straight away uphold those infirmities which are pleaded unless they are tested. The main infirmity that is alleged is that even assuming the plaintiff is alleged to have executed the sale deed, though he denies the execution, that he being a minor as on that date the transaction would be void. It is the onus of establishing the infirmity that lies on the plaintiff and one must remember that until this burden is discharged, the Court cannot come to any definite conclusions in this regard. Similarly, as regards the question of the record of rights, whereas there is a good deal of merit in Mr. Patil's contention that if the transaction of sale took place in 1979, that there appears to be virtually no reason why the change would not have been made for more than one decade thereafter. The fact still remains that the defendants will have to be given an opportunity of tendering whatever explanation they may have for this. There are several disputed areas in this case but more importantly I find that there are many grey areas which could ultimately emerge in favour of either of the parties. ( 5 ) MR. The fact still remains that the defendants will have to be given an opportunity of tendering whatever explanation they may have for this. There are several disputed areas in this case but more importantly I find that there are many grey areas which could ultimately emerge in favour of either of the parties. ( 5 ) MR. Patil advanced a very strong submission that by going back to the year 1973 if he could establish the plaintiffs title in respect of Survey No. 60/2, that the Courts must uphold his contention that he is not only the owner but he is in possession of that whole survey number. Normally I would have straight away upheld this submission except for the fact that a registered document has been produced in respect of part of that land and it is this document which requires to be carefully examined. This court will not opine with regard to the validity or otherwise of that document at this point of time because both the parties must be afforded a fair opportunity of proving their cases in that regard. ( 6 ) THE last question that arises is as to whether having regard to this state of record the two Courts were justified in refusing the plaintiff a relief in respect of a part of the land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas. In my considered view, the two Courts were slightly in error in this regard because it is well-settled law that even if a relief as prayed for cannot be granted, that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the Courts must mould a suitable relief having regard to the interests of justice. The plaintiff contends that he is in possession of that area of land and that he always was whereas the respondents to this petition contend that they are in possession of that area of land. I find it impossible to hold conclusively in favour of either party and under these circumstances the Court is left with no option except to direct that the status quo as of today shall be maintained. It is clarified that whichever of the parties is in possession shall be precluded completely from alienating, parting with possession or creating any third party rights in respect of the area of 2 acres 20 guntas. It is clarified that whichever of the parties is in possession shall be precluded completely from alienating, parting with possession or creating any third party rights in respect of the area of 2 acres 20 guntas. ( 7 ) THE suit was filed in the year 1992 and is already 4 year sold. Having regard to this position and the fact that the point involved is a relatively narrow one, the Trial Court is directed to expedite and proceed with and dispose of the matter as early as possible. The order passed by the Appeal Court is accordingly modified to the extent as directed by this Court that the parties shall maintain status quo as of today only until disposal of the proceeding before the Trial Court. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.