ORDER Guru Sharan Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 141 of 1998, against the opposite parties for declaration of title, confirmation of possession over the suit land, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining them from going over it as also for mandatory injunction to demolish the construction of rooms and boundary wall made by them. On 4.9.1998, a petition for interim injunction was filed by him for restraining them from disturbing his possession over the suit land-Schedule A. 2. According to the petitioner, the then landlord by patta dated 26.3.1944, made raiyati settlement of the suit land in favour of one Jageshwar Singh. By registered sale deed dated 11.5.1982, the heirs of late Jageshwar Singh and his brother sold 5 kathas out of total 20 kathas land of plot No. 117 to the petitioners son Anand Kishore Singh, which is described in Schedule B to the plaint. Subsequently, they sold the remaining 15 kathas to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 19.6.1982, Anand Kishore Singh died thereafter and hence the petitioner inherited the said 5 kathas, being his class-1 heir. On the petitioners absence, the opposite parties 1 to 6 encroached upon the Schedule B land and constructed rooms and boundary wall some time in October, 1998. 3. Opposite parties 1 and 2, on the other hand, claimed their possession over 68 decimals land of plot No. 117 for more than 50 years and thereby perfection of title by adverse possession thereon. Opposite party No. 3 claimed his peaceful possession over 13 decimals land of the said plot and settlement thereof by the State Government made in his favour in the year 1988 and the opposite parties 4 to 6 claimed 10 decimals thereof to have obtained in raiyati settlement by the father of the opposite party No. 4 by patta dated 5.4.1993, from the then landlord. 4. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff, on the one hand, accepted to have been dispossessed from the Schedule B land and on the other sought for interim injunction for disturbing his possession over the entire Schedule A land, which consisted the Schedule B land also. 5. The Court of appeal below also held that the plaintiff himself admitted to have been dispossessed by the defendant from the Schedule B land. 5. The Court of appeal below also held that the plaintiff himself admitted to have been dispossessed by the defendant from the Schedule B land. It was further observed that there was no whisper of any threat to dispossess him from the remaining 15 kathas. However, the trial Courts order was not interfered with and the appeal was dismissed. 6. It appears, prima-facie, that on the one hand the petitioners claim over the suit land is based on raiyati settlement in favour of his vendors and his purchase by registered sale deeds in the year 1982 and on the other the claims of opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 over different parts of Schedule A land are basically on adverse possession and the opposite party No. 3 also claims alleged settlement of 13 decimals land by the State Government in 1988 in his favour. The claim of opposite parties 4 to 6 over a part of it is based on alleged raiyati settlement. 7. So far as Schedule B land is concerned, the petitioner has already accepted his alleged dispossession some time, in, October, 1998. So, there is no occasion to interfere with the orders refusing to grant interim injunction in favour of the petitioner by the two Courts below. However, in my view, the petitioner has, prima-facie, made out a case for interim relief in respect of the remaining part of Schedule A minus Schedule B land and as such the parties are directed to maintain status-quo ante till further orders passed by the trial Court, if necessary, over remaining 15 kathas land of Schedule A, which is outside Schedule B land. 8. With this modification in the impugned orders, this Revision application is disposed of.