JUDGMENT N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.--This is the Plaintiff's appeal directed against the Order passed on I.A. No. I, in O.S. No. 7988 of 2000 by the v. Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, dated 1.8.2001 partly allowing I.A. No. I filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The Plaintiff is a Religious and Charitable Trust rendering charitable services since 1886 that by a Deed of Settlement dated 23.11.1886 certain immovable properties situated at Gavipuram Guttahalli commonly known as Sri Gavi Gangadareshwara Swamy Temple in Gavipuram Guttahalli settled in favour of the Plaintiff, consisting of 20 ankanas including vacant land and angala backyard, a well etc. Subsequently, by another document dated 31.8.1919 the persons by name Sri Nanjundappa and Sri Banappa gifted certain properties as "Dharma Shasana" situated at Bangalore City, Gavipuram Guttahalli near Sri Gavi Gangadareshwara Swamy Temple, measuring East to West: 22 ft., North to South: 45 ft. and bounded on the East: by Plaintiff's choultry, West: by road, North: by vacant land and South: by "Bhahuthwada Angala". Subsequently, by an Agreement dated 21.7.1965 between the Plaintiff and Sri Banappa certain conditions were stipulated to put up a gate for the use of the donee and donor. The suit schedule property demarcated in the letters "A, B, C, D", measures approximately East to West: 60 ft. and North to South: 50 ft. the southern boundary of the suit schedule property is shown in the letters "A, B" to the plaint sketch, described as "Bhahuthwada Angala" and the said "Bhahuthwada Angala" are in enjoyment in common by the Plaintiff and the Defendant having a domain over the property by Plaintiff. One Sri Nagaraj filed O.S. No. 2388 of 1973 against the Magaji Dhondusa Charities for the relief of perpetual injunction. The said suit was in respect of "Bhahuthwada Angala". After the trial, it was dismissed on 16.12.1975. The said Sri Nagaraj preferred Regular Appeal No. 46 of 1976, which also came to be dismissed. The Defendant in order to develop the property entered into an understanding with the developers and illegally made an attempt to remove and dismantle the existing compound wall and to remove the stone slabs which were laid permanently on the suit schedule property called "Bhahuthwada Angala". The Defendant in order to develop the property entered into an understanding with the developers and illegally made an attempt to remove and dismantle the existing compound wall and to remove the stone slabs which were laid permanently on the suit schedule property called "Bhahuthwada Angala". The Defendant has also made an attempt to put up a permanent construction by blocking the entire access of ingress and egress towards "Bhahuthwada Angala", which leads to Magaji Dhondusa Charities. In the meanwhile, the Defendant also filed O.S. No. 175 of 2000 for perpetual injunction in which, the Defendant has made a false claim. The Plaintiff ha a right over "Bhahuthwada Angala". The Defendant and his supporters interfered with the suit schedule property on 20.11.2000 by doing Bhoomi Pooja with an intention to put up multistoried apartments. On the above pleadings, filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant, their agents not to interfere or put up any construction over the suit schedule property and for such other consequential relief along with I.A. No. I under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure praying for the relief of temporary injunction. The Defendant filed a detailed written statement pleading that in fact Bhahuthwada Angala recited therein is the boundary of the property covered by the deed "Bhahuthwa" of "Angala" being between the executants thereof i.e., Sri Banappa and Sri Nanjundappa who were enjoying the same in common along with the property situate to the South of the purported Plaintiff's Choultry. The ownership of the "Bhahuthwada Angala" had vest only in Sri Banappa and Sri Nanjundappa and not in Plaintiff. However, if it were to be otherwise, there was no need to execute document purportedly transferring northern area of "Bhahuthwada Angala". The very term of the document relied upon by the Plaintiff deciphers that the permission granted on the transferred property itself belonged to the transferors and as such, the purported to transferees could not have before such professed transfer, could exercise any rights over which. When that was so, it was impossible to conceive that the property beyond the transferred property ever suffered any rights of the Plaintiff. In respect of the property in dispute there was never and even now any common right granted or otherwise recognised in favour of the Plaintiff by late Sri Banappa and Sri Nanjundappa. When that was so, it was impossible to conceive that the property beyond the transferred property ever suffered any rights of the Plaintiff. In respect of the property in dispute there was never and even now any common right granted or otherwise recognised in favour of the Plaintiff by late Sri Banappa and Sri Nanjundappa. The property being a part of larger extent and the Defendant's property has been in the exclusive ownership and possession of the Defendant. In fact, a big gate and a small gate is opened and used by this Defendant exclusively for decades in the schedule property. Besides that space opens to the residence and private temple of the Defendant. In the middle there were two stone long pillars (Garuda Gambas) of the temple. One of which has fallen down and the other one stands. A separate gate had been installed to the north of the area covered by the deed of 1919. As such there was nothing in commonness with reference to the suit schedule property. The ingress and egress through plaint schedule property was exclusively to the Defendant, whereas the Plaintiff has no right in the said area. The word "Bhahuthwada Angala" termed by the grantors was always interested and expressed called as grantees common property not that of one, which jointly belongs to grantors and grantees. The Plaintiff has not acquired any right in respect of "Bhahuthwada Angala". The issue in O.S. No. 2338 of 1973 is wholly irrelevant as the same was in respect of laying of water pipes. In fact, it is within the power of this Defendant to develop the properties situated on the southern side, which are his absolute properties. The Defendant intends to put up structure on vacant land by preserving the private temple. "Bhahuthwada Angala" never existed in "Bhahuthwa" between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. But, it was only between Sri Banappa and Sri Nanjundappa who were joint owners. Their "Bhahuthwa" was not shared with the Plaintiff. In fact, the Defendant has been physically prevented by the police at the behest of the Plaintiff from proceeding further and this Defendant has incurred heavy commitment and he is facing lot of problems on account of the same and denied all other averments which are inconsistent in the plaint and prayed to dismiss the suit. In fact, the Defendant has been physically prevented by the police at the behest of the Plaintiff from proceeding further and this Defendant has incurred heavy commitment and he is facing lot of problems on account of the same and denied all other averments which are inconsistent in the plaint and prayed to dismiss the suit. Learned City Civil Judge after hearing both the learned Counsel, considering the pleadings, documents and the admissions found therein, allowed I.A. No. I in part, restraining the Defendant from interfering with the suit property called as "Bhahuthwada Angala" to the extent of 5 ft. with passage abutting to the Plaintiff's property towards the southern side pending disposal of the suit. 3. The Plaintiff being aggrieved of the Order of the learned City Civil Judge rejecting the part of his prayer in respect of entire "Bhahuthwada Angala" has come up with this appeal. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant Sri Shekar Shetty contended that by a document dated 1.9.1919 the owners viz. Sri Nanjundappa and Sri Bannappa gifted a property measuring East to West: by 22 ft., North to South: by 45 ft. and bounded by the East: Plaintiff's Choultry, West: road, North: vacant land and South: "Bhahuthwada Angala". Learned Counsel contended that the southern boundary described and shown in the sketch as "A, B" is "Bhahuthwada Angala" which means, is meant for common use. Therefore, the Defendant cannot put up construction on the entire area of "Bhahuthwada Angala". Nextly contended that by an agreement dated 21.7.1965 between the Plaintiff and Sri Banappa it is clearly shown that the southern boundary is "Bhahuthwada Angala" which means, for the better use of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. According to the recital in the document in respect of Item No. 1, it is a common space meant for the use of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Further contended that even in the Item No. 2 in the same deed, the northern boundary is shown as "Bhahuthwada Angala". It makes clear that the Plaintiff has an access to "Bhahuthwada Angala". Therefore, the Defendant cannot put up any construction. Further contended that even in the Item No. 2 in the same deed, the northern boundary is shown as "Bhahuthwada Angala". It makes clear that the Plaintiff has an access to "Bhahuthwada Angala". Therefore, the Defendant cannot put up any construction. Further contended when there is a triable issue the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein the learned City Civil Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is only entitled to the make use of the "Bhahuthwada Angala" to the extent of 5 ft. on the southern side of their property. If the Defendant were to be permitted to put up construction, virtually the suit of the Plaintiff becomes infructuous. Therefore, contended that there is a prima-facie case in favour of the Plaintiff. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiff and in case if an Order of injunction is not granted the Plaintiff will suffer from irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money and submitted that the documents dated 1.9.1919 and 21.7.1965 are clear and the same is admitted by the parties. When "Bhahuthwada Angala" is meant for common use, the intention of the parties is understood. Therefore, submits prima-facie case is made out. Further contended that the Respondent also filed O.S. No. 1758 of 2000 and sought for temporary injunction, which came to be rejected. However submitted that the Plaintiff is not claiming any exclusive right or relief over "Bhahuthwada Angala". But the space has to be maintained and protected as "Bhahuthwada Angala" for the common use of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Nextly contended that the learned City Civil Judge erred in relying on the findings in O.S. No. 7988 of 2000 and Regular Appeal No. 46 of 1976. The Plaintiff has never confined only to area of 5 ft. in width at any time towards southern side property described as "Bhahuthwada Angala". It is also contended that the Defendant has not obtained any plan under the Corporation Act. Even otherwise if any plan is granted, that remains only for a period of two years. In view of the fact that Sri Nanjundappa and Sri Banappa the brothers have executed a document, status-quo to be maintained. It is also contended that the Defendant has not obtained any plan under the Corporation Act. Even otherwise if any plan is granted, that remains only for a period of two years. In view of the fact that Sri Nanjundappa and Sri Banappa the brothers have executed a document, status-quo to be maintained. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal restraining the Respondent from putting up any construction over the area shown in the letters "A, B, C, D" in the suit sketch. 5. Learned Counsel Sri Yoganarasimha, for the Respondent vehemently contended that the suit of the Plaintiff is one for permanent injunction. It is the argument of the Appellant's Counsel that there is no sanctioned plan and constructing in violation of the Corporation bye-laws etc. is without any pleadings in the suit. There is no prayer as such. Such an issue has not come up before the trial Court for consideration. Therefore, there is no triable issue at all. It is also clear that the Plaintiff is not claiming any right in the property. Even in the prayer they do not claim the right of easement or the right of license over the property. No specific assertion or acquiescence of any easementary right over the property nor there is any pleading to that effect and submitted that it is admitted that they does not claim any right over the property before 1919. Therefore, there is no pre-existing right to claim that it is a "Bhahuthwada Angala". The concept is belongs to both i.e., among the brothers Sri Nanjundappa and Sri Banappa. There must be an element of right prior to 1919. Then only the concept of joint enjoyment arises. But, that is not so. It is contended earlier to 1919, the boundaries were never described as "Bhahuthwada Angala". It is for the beneficial enjoyment of the brothers the southern boundary came to be described as "Bhahuthwada Angala". That do not ensure for the benefit of the Plaintiff. It is further clear from the agreement of 1965 that the Plaintiff's prayer was only to permit to put up a gate, for the purpose of repair of the Temple and Banappa Choultry. It is in so far as that property is concerned, it was agreed to have a right of ingress and egress. Further contended that it is a case of "camel in a tent". Therefore, no right is conveyed. It is in so far as that property is concerned, it was agreed to have a right of ingress and egress. Further contended that it is a case of "camel in a tent". Therefore, no right is conveyed. When there is no element of transfer or creating right in "Bhahuthwada Angala", the only option to the Plaintiff to carry out the repair work if required, and that was "pious hope". It is also made clear by the agreement dated 21.7.1965 to what purpose the gate has to be put up. When such being the case, the question of claiming right of easement or license does not arise. The gift executed by the donors is accepted by the donees. Therefore, the donees are not entitled to claim any other right than what has been gifted as "Dharma Shasana". Nextly contended that the report of the Commissioner and the sketch clearly reveals the actual existence of the suit schedule property. When the Plaintiff has access to their property from all the three sides, calling upon the Defendants not to put up construction on their own property virtually is nothing but interfering with the right, title and interest over the Defendant's property. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claiming the right of easement or license over "Bhahuthwada Angala" does not arise. Even otherwise, the Defendant magnanimously left an area of 5 ft., which shows the fair conduct of the Defendant. Therefore, the Appellant is not entitled for consequential relief. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. In the light of the submissions, the points for consideration that arise: 1) Whether the Plaintiff has acquired a right of enjoyment over the southern boundary described as "Bhahuthwada Angala" shown in the suit sketch? 2) Whether the impugned order of the learned City Civil Judge is capricious and unreasonable? If so, liable to be interfered with? 3) What Order? 7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Shekar Shetty in support of his contention relied on number of decisions regarding the principles laid down by the Apex Court and other various Courts to consider the same for grant of injunction. In the case of Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary and Others Vs. If so, liable to be interfered with? 3) What Order? 7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Shekar Shetty in support of his contention relied on number of decisions regarding the principles laid down by the Apex Court and other various Courts to consider the same for grant of injunction. In the case of Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary and Others Vs. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar and Others, AIR 1983 SC 742 , at para 6 held: When an interim injunction is sought, the Court may have to examine whether the party seeking the assistance of the Court was at any time in lawful possession of the property and if it is so established one would prima facie ask the other side contesting the suit to show how the Plaintiffs were dispossessed? In the present case the injunction restraining interference with possession of the land cannot be refused. It is clear from the observations that in case if the Plaintiff found to be in possession of the property at any time, then he is entitled for an order of injunction. The claim of the Plaintiff for the relief of injunction is in respect of land, which has to be examined on the basis of the facts of this case. 8. This Court in the case of Venkat Reddy Vs. Budenna alias Dodda Budenna and Ors.reported in 1971 (1) MLJ 317, observed that: The trial Court had ignored relevant facts which were important and materially affected the decision in the case, held that it is proper to interfere with the order of the trial Court and to grant an order of injunction. In the light of the observation, considering the facts of this case, it has to be examined as to: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for an order of injunction or not? 9. Similarly, in the case of Sri C.H. Krishnamurthy Vs. Manjappa and Anr. reported in 1996 (3) Kar LJ 580, while considering the provisions of Order 39, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, it is observed: While granting or refusing an order of injunction, the Court can mould suitable relief in the interest of both the parties. With the said observations, held that: The party is in possession of suit property is precluded from alienating the same or creating any third party rights thereon. 10. With the said observations, held that: The party is in possession of suit property is precluded from alienating the same or creating any third party rights thereon. 10. It is sought to be relied on the decision of the House of Lords in the case of American Cyanamid Co. Vs. Ethicon Limited, reported in Indian Law Reports, Volume XXVI, 1976 page 426. Insofar as the principles of prima facie case are concerned, at para 15 it is thus observed that: Your Lordships should in my view take this opportunity of declaring that there is no such rule. The use of such expressions as "a probability", "a prima facie case" or "a strong prima facie case" in the context of the exercise, of a discretionary power to grant an interlocutory injunction leads to confusion as to the object sought to be achieved by this form of temporary relief. The Court no doubt must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious; in other words, that there is a serious question to be tried. Therefore, what is required to be examined in the present case is whether the claim of the Plaintiff is genuine and if an order of injunction is not granted whether the Plaintiff suffers from irreparable loss or injustice would be caused. It is purely a matter to be considered by examining the documents produced by the learned Counsel. 11. In the case of Smt. Rathnamma Vs. B.A. Srinivasa Gupta and Others, (1999) 1 KarLJ 577 , it is pointed out that; "in order to preserve the property in dispute till the legal rights of the parties are settled that an order of status quo have to be granted". It is on the said observations, sought to be contended that here is a case which the parties have to go for a trial, therefore, if the Defendants were to be permitted to put up construction, the right of the Plaintiff will be prejudiced. Under such circumstances, the Court should grant an order of injunction. It is no-doubt true that where the right of the Plaintiff were to be invaded or to be affected, that the Court should come forward to protect the interest of the party from such unlawful constructions. But the same has to be examined on the basis of materials available on the facts of this case. It is no-doubt true that where the right of the Plaintiff were to be invaded or to be affected, that the Court should come forward to protect the interest of the party from such unlawful constructions. But the same has to be examined on the basis of materials available on the facts of this case. While granting or refusing an order of injunction, the Court has to see whether on the face of the record that there is a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and in the event if an order of injunction is not granted, whether the Plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss or suffer from injury as the case may be. These three principles have to be examined on the basis of the documents, on which they have relied upon, and further the Court has to examine whether the rights of the Plaintiff were to be affected and if so, the impugned order of the trial Court does call for interference. 12. It is an admitted fact that the donors viz. Sri Nanjundappa and Sri Banappa gifted an area measuring East to West: 22 ft. and North to South: 45 ft. abutting to the Plaintiff's property bounded East: by Plaintiff's Choultry, West: by road, North: by vacant space and South: by "Bhahuthwada Angala". From the said document it clearly reveals what is gifted is 22 ft. x 45 ft. for religious and charitable purpose. The purpose of "Dharma Shasana" mainly for construction of Kalyanamantapa, Temple, Choultry etc. It is with this intention to fulfil the ambition of their ancestors Sri Banappa and Sri Nanjundappa executed a Deed of Gift. In the present case, the dispute is in so far as southern portion of the Plaintiff's property which is described in the letters "A, B" annexed to the suit sketch. The agreement dated 21.2.1965 between Sri Banappa and the Plaintiff shows that the southern boundary has been described as "Bhahuthwada Angala". In the said agreement, it shows that Sri Banappa residing in the property described as Item No. 2 situated on the southern side of the Plaintiff's property. In which, the northern boundary of Item No. 2 of Sri Banappa is shown as "Bhahuthwada Angala". In the said agreement, it shows that Sri Banappa residing in the property described as Item No. 2 situated on the southern side of the Plaintiff's property. In which, the northern boundary of Item No. 2 of Sri Banappa is shown as "Bhahuthwada Angala". This shows between the Plaintiff's property and the Defendant's property there remain a vacant space which is now shown in the plaint sketch in the letters "A, B, C, D". The question that has to be examined whether the Plaintiff has any accession or right in respect of "Bhahuthwada Angala". In so far as this is concerned, we have to go back to the agreement dated 21.7.1965 which reads as follows: Whereas, the entrance to both the items of the property in the schedule only through one main gate, whereas the said entrance is now unprotected without any gate, whereas it is desired by both the parties that the gate should be fixed at the entrance to the schedule properties, whereas, the party of the first part is agreeable to have the gate fixed at his cost. Whereas, the parties hereby expressly agree that both the parties should have equal rights to the said gate to have ingress and egress to the main building under the terms and conditions. This makes clear that the Plaintiff has agreed to put up a gate at their costs to have a wooden or iron gate and maintain the said gate without any damage with equal rights to both over the said gate leading to the schedule property. On a perusal of the suit sketch, earlier as it stood in the property of the Defendant there was a Kalyani, two temples, two "Dwaja Stambas" and one Banappa Choultry. The other portion of the Plaintiff's property is that situated towards north are two choultries in between a passage belonging to Magaji Dhondusa Charities and a gate is opened which is an access for entrance for the Temple and that was the arrangement made then. Now coming to the report of the Commissioner, there is no construction in the area measuring 60 ft. x 40 ft. i.e., shown in the letters "A, B, C, D". However, the area is dug up for laying foundation ranging 2 ft. x 10 ft. at different levels. In between the Plaintiff's Choultry there is one passage at point A2-A3 with a gate. x 40 ft. i.e., shown in the letters "A, B, C, D". However, the area is dug up for laying foundation ranging 2 ft. x 10 ft. at different levels. In between the Plaintiff's Choultry there is one passage at point A2-A3 with a gate. From point A-A3 there is a passage of about 5 ft. no Temples are in existence in the premises shown with the letters "A-B1-B4-B7-B10-A". So also, there are no Temple or Choultry exists in the area A-B1-D4-D3-A. This shows the temples that were in existence earlier have collapsed and thereby the Defendant has taken up the construction. 13. Learned Counsel Sri Yoganarasimha has produced the approved plan with an application under Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure along with the xerox copy of the Deed dated 27.5.1909. The plan came to be sanctioned on 28.1.2001 valid up to 14.2.2003. The deed dated 27.5.1909 shows that this property came in possession of Sri Nanjundappa and Sri Banappa in pursuance of a partition. In the said Deed, the place in dispute is described as vacant space and not as a "Bhahuthwada Angala". 14. In the normal course, where a property is transferred for valuable consideration, the description of the boundaries are found to resolve the uncertainties regarding the dispute over the boundaries or in otherwise to say to fix up the boundaries in respect of the properties in question. A boundary is a line or object indicating the limit or furthest extent of a tract of land, which signifies the limit, itself and a visible mark. More or less, in the boundary in a Deed of Grant of land are merely words of description to prevent the parties from being prejudiced from inaccuracies. In the present case, what is given away by way of gift as "Dharma Shasana" is an area measuring East to West: 22 ft. and North to South: 45 ft. for utilising it for religious and charitable purpose of the community. It is no-doubt true that the southern boundary has been described as "Bhahuthwada Angala". That does not mean any right has been conveyed in favour of the Plaintiff insofar as "Bhahuthwada Angala". The property that was in existence at the time of "Dharma Shasana" cannot be expected to remain as in the same conditions or kept as it is even after more than 50 years. That does not mean any right has been conveyed in favour of the Plaintiff insofar as "Bhahuthwada Angala". The property that was in existence at the time of "Dharma Shasana" cannot be expected to remain as in the same conditions or kept as it is even after more than 50 years. It is clear from the very report of the Commissioner that the temples and the "Dwaja Sthamba" found collapsed. It is also clear from the report and the sketch of the Commissioner, the Plaintiff has access to his property from all other three sides facing roads. 15. In the Black's Law Dictionary, in page No. 170 the meaning of "Bond for land"; A bond given by the seller of land to a buyer, binding the seller to convey once the buyer tenders the agreed price. In the present case, no price is paid. What has been given to the Plaintiff is a free gift by way of "Dharma Shasana". Therefore, merely because of the reason that it is defined as "Bhahuthwada Angala" does not convey any legal right to have access to it. In the Law Lexicon at page 238 it is defined that: The word "ADJOINING" in the description of the boundaries of the premises conveyed has been held to mean "next to, or "in contact with", and to exclude the idea of any intervening space. Further in the Law Lexicon at page 238 the words: "To," "FROM", "BY AND "ON" when used to express boundaries are always to be understood as terms of exclusion, unless there is something in the connection which makes it manifest that they were used in a different sense. Instead as termed of exclusion unless there is something in the action which makes it manifest with, they were used in different stages. Therefore, what has been described in "Dharma Shasana" as "Bhahuthwada Angala" is only a boundary line and cannot have any legal right over the property of the Defendant who is the real owner. That apart, the learned City Civil Judge has also taken to consideration the pleadings in O.S. No. 1758 of 2000 the suit filed by the Defendant for the relief of permanent injunction. That apart, the learned City Civil Judge has also taken to consideration the pleadings in O.S. No. 1758 of 2000 the suit filed by the Defendant for the relief of permanent injunction. Para 5 of the plaint in O.S. No. 1758 of 2000 reads as follows: It is to be stated herein that towards the northern side of the suit schedule property there was 5 feet width passage was existing towards northern side of this 5 feet width passage the property was existing and the same was gifted in favour of Sri Pandurangaswamy Temple for public charitable purpose. This property measures East to West 221/2 feet and North to South 45 feet. Apart from this property another property was also gifted in favour of the temple for similar purpose. The Plaintiff do not know as to how the Defendants 1 and 2 have acquired title in respect of the property situated on the northern side of the common passage measuring 5 feet width. The Plaintiff herein reserves his right to take appropriate action in respect of that property. 16. It is in pursuance of the said admission to the extent of 5 ft. restrained the Defendant from putting up construction and allowed I.A. No. I in part. Admittedly, the Plaintiff does not claim any legal right over "Bhahuthwada Angala". But claims the right of easement. In this regard, in the agreement, what was provided to have access to reach the Temple property by putting a gate from their property to reach Temple which was on the property of the Defendant for the purpose of the repair as and when required and nothing more. Under the agreement of 1965, no legal rights have been transferred in favour of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the question of claiming easementary right over the property of the Defendant does not arise. When the Defendant has given certain property as "Dharma Shasana" for the benefit of the Plaintiff-Charitable Institution under a deed, instead of improving their own property have bent upon litigating against the donor. It is also not come out as to what purpose they are claiming right of easement on "Bhahuthwada Angala" when the Temple and "Dwaja Sthambas" were all found collapsed and there being no necessity to enter over the property of the Defendant, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the right of easement or license. It is also not come out as to what purpose they are claiming right of easement on "Bhahuthwada Angala" when the Temple and "Dwaja Sthambas" were all found collapsed and there being no necessity to enter over the property of the Defendant, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the right of easement or license. The claim of right of easementary or license arises only when they have acquiescence of certain right over the property of the Defendant for their beneficial use. But, no beneficial use is found in this case. It is further seen from the report as well as the sketch of the Commissioner that the property of the Plaintiff is bounded by roads on all the three sides. Therefore, even the question of claiming easementary right or the right of license does not arise. 17. Viewing the matter from any angle, the Plaintiff having no right whatsoever over "Bhahuthwada Angala" is not entitled to seek the relief of Temporary Injunction against the "True Owner". For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly the same is dismissed.