JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - I.-Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Second Additional District Judge. Bhubaneswar, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1/21 of 1997/95, the Plaintiffs have preferred this revision. By the impugned judgment the learned appellate court reversed the order of the learned Civil Judge. Junior Division, Bhubaneswar, whereby the Defendants, opposite parties 1 & 2 herein, were restrained from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land. 2. Plaintiffs have instituted' Title Suit No. 114 of 1994 for confirmation of possession and for restraining the Defendants from entering upon the suit land as described in Schedule 'C' of the plaint. The suit C' schedule land comprises of two plots, viz.. plot No. 466 under Khata No. 154 in mouza Nayapalli measuring Ac.0. l08 dec. out of Ac.1.755 dee. and plot No. 465 measuring Ac.0.037 dec. under Khata No. 1176 of Nilakanthanagar, Unit-17, Bhubaneswar, Distriet- Khurda. Schedule 'A' and 'B' lands are parts of plot No. 466 as described in schedule "C' land. Plaintiffs' case, in brief, is that Plaintiff No. 2 purchased 'A' schedule land from one Baman Charan Mohanty by a registered sale deed dated 21-12-1973 and since purchase both the Plaintiffs being related as husband and wife, have been possessing the same after constructing a house thereon So far as 'B' schedule land is concerned, Aintha Swain and Ors. being the successors of the recorded owner entered into an oral agreement for sale with Plaintiffs and put them in possession. Thereupon the Plaintiffs amalgamated the aforesaid land with their purchased land as described in schedule' A' and raised a pucca building after getting the plan approved by the Municipal authority. About.20 years after, Aintha Swain and Ors. transferred 'B' schedule land by a registered sale deed dated 19-13-1993 in favour of Plaintiff to. 2. According to the Plaintiffs; both 'A' and 'B' schedule lands are situate in one-compact area and over a portion of it they have their own residential building and the test is being used as their garden. Though they have acquired title in respect of schedule 'A' and 'B' lands comprising an area of Ac.0.108 dec. by virtue of their purchase at aforesaid but in fact they are in physical possession of Ac.0.1.45 dec.. The further case of the Plaintiff is that Defendant No. 1 gave out that he was the owner of Ac.0.054 dec. Though they have acquired title in respect of schedule 'A' and 'B' lands comprising an area of Ac.0.108 dec. by virtue of their purchase at aforesaid but in fact they are in physical possession of Ac.0.1.45 dec.. The further case of the Plaintiff is that Defendant No. 1 gave out that he was the owner of Ac.0.054 dec. of plot No. 466 and being in need of money would sale the same. Desirous of purchasing the said, land, "plaintiffs' paid him certain amount if} advance in February, 1977. In the very same year they also paid him some more amount and obtained receipts. But on some pretext or other Defendant No. 1 delayed the execution of the sale deed, Later on, Plaintiffs could come to know that instead of executing the sale deed in.their favour, Defendant, No. 1 created a nominal sale deed in respect of the very same land in favour of Defendant No. 2 on 30-12-1992 and on the strength of the said deed the latter created trouble which led to various litigations. According to the Plaintiff, now it transpires that the excess land to the extent of Ac.0.037 dec. which is in their possession is not part of plot No. 466 as given out by Defendant No. 1, but part of plot No. 465 which is a Government land and in order to evict the Plaintiffs from the said land Government of Orissa through the Estate Officer of General demonstration Department has initiated eviction proceeding which is now pending for adjudication. In the above factual backdrop, they filed the aforesaid suit claiming the reliefs as aforesaid against Defendants 1and 2 and against the State through Secretary to Government of Orissa, General Administration Department. They filed a petition under Order 39, Rules and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C., against Defendants 1 and 2 to restrain them from disturbing in their possession in respect of Schedule 'C' land till disposal of the suit. 3. Defendants 1and 2 the main, contesting Defendants, filed separate written statement. While challenging the Plaintiffs' title to schedule land they have denied the plaint averments as to the agreement for sale by Defendant No. 1. in respect of the aforesaid land and payment of any amount as part consideration. They have further pleaded that Aintha Swain and Ors. 3. Defendants 1and 2 the main, contesting Defendants, filed separate written statement. While challenging the Plaintiffs' title to schedule land they have denied the plaint averments as to the agreement for sale by Defendant No. 1. in respect of the aforesaid land and payment of any amount as part consideration. They have further pleaded that Aintha Swain and Ors. were not owners in possession of 'B' schedule land as asserted by the Plaintiffs and therefore, any transfer affected by them in favour of Plaintiff No. 2 did not confer any title on her. Their positive assertion is that Defendant No. 1 purchased the 'B' schedule land from the recorded owners on 8-11-1960 and which being in possession as owner, transferred by -way of sale to Defendant No. 2 on 30-12-1992 and put him in possession thereof. Thus Defendant No. 2 is the sole owner of 'B' schedule land and not Plaintiff No. 2.. 4. From the pleadings of both Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2 it would appear that they have independently claimed title and possession in respect of schedule 'B' land. Learned trial court however, accepted the Plaintiffs' case and held that they have a strong prima facie case in their favour and consequently restrained the Defendants from interfering in their possession: For arriving at such a finding it relied upon certain documents filed by them, viz.. rent receipt and municipal tax receipt besides the plaint averments that Defendant No. 1 having entered into an oral agreement for sale with the Plaintiffs in respect of the said land received certain amount as part consideration and put them in possession. It may be noted that Plaintiffs' assertion about the alleged oral agreement for sale has been stoutly denied by Defendant No. 1 in his written statement. 5. Therefore, this being a disputed question of fact and in absence of any other material, learned trial court should not have accepted the Plaintiffs' case for finding a prima facie case in their favour. So far as payment of rent by the Plaintiffs which weighed in the mind of the court below as piece of evidence in proof of possession in their favour it may be noted that only one rent receipt that stands in the name of Nilamani Swain and Ors. was filed. So far as payment of rent by the Plaintiffs which weighed in the mind of the court below as piece of evidence in proof of possession in their favour it may be noted that only one rent receipt that stands in the name of Nilamani Swain and Ors. was filed. As regards the Municipal Tax receipt similarly one such receipt was filed which stands in the name of Plaintiff No. 2. In normal course tax receipt is granted by the municipal authorities in favour of the person in whose name the building stands. In the present case the tax receipt filed by the Plaintiffs is a printed one having a column to mention the holding number. There is no other column to indicate the revenue plot number. 6. But strangely enough, revenue plot number has been indicated in the said receipt. When there is no such column provided in the printed receipt to mention the revenue plot number, how and under what' circumstances the grantor could mention revenue plot number are matters to be ascertained on the basis of the evidence to be adduced-by the Plaintiffs during trial of the suit. Be that as it may, from the sale municipal tax receipt as afore said it cannot be assumed that the Plaintiffs' building stands over both 'A' and 'B' schedule lands. It may be noted, there is no serious dispute about Plaintiffs' title in respect of schedule 'A' land which is also part of plot No. 466. In view of the pleadings of the parties referred to earlier and there being no acceptable evidence to support the Plaintiffs' claim of exclusive possession of 'B' schedule land, the learned trial court was not justified in restraining the Defendants from interfering with their possession in respect of whole of the suit land. The appellate court, in my opinion, has rightly upset the order of the trial court with sound reasoning which calls for no interference in this revision. 7. In the result, the revision fails and the same is dismissed with costs which is assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed