Judgment ( 1. ) PLAINTIFF has come up in appeals under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the order dated 20-12-2002, passed by learned District Judge, Mandsour in c. S. No. 5-A of 2002, whereby his application made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been rejected biparte by the learned Trial Judge. In other words, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to reject the injunction application made by the plaintiff praying temporary injunction as contemplated under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC holding that no prima facie case is made out on facts. It is this order, which is impugned in this appeal by the plaintiff. ( 2. ) HEARD Shri P. K Saxena, learned Senior Counsel with Shri rawka, learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. ( 3. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in the appeal and hence, no case for interference in the impugned order is called for. As a consequence, the appeal must merit dismissal in limine. ( 4. ) IN substance, the plaintiff sought temporary injunction on the ground of he claiming to be in possession of suit land. It is not in dispute that plaintiff has not been able to substantiate his title to the suit land. In other words, he neither claimed himself to be an owner of suit land on the strength of any valid title such as acquisition of title by sale deed, partition deed, inheritance, Will, gift deed etc. He simply relied on what he described as possessory title. In the opinion of Trial Court and in my view lightly, what is important, decisive and material was not possession, but its nature and basis. Since, plaintiff has admittedly failed to prove his nature and character of possession and hence, for want of any legal and valid title, the learned Trial judge was justified in refusing to grant injunction to the plaintiff. ( 5. ) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the appellant with vehemence was that plaintiff was in possession of suit land on the strength of adverse possession as against its true owner Karulal and hence, the true owner alone can dispossess the plaintiff. ( 5. ) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the appellant with vehemence was that plaintiff was in possession of suit land on the strength of adverse possession as against its true owner Karulal and hence, the true owner alone can dispossess the plaintiff. It is on this assertion, the plaintiff claimed that defendant who does not claim to be the true owner of the land has no right to interfere in plaintiffs possession. I do not agree to this submission which has no force. Firstly, the so-called true owner - Karulal is not even made party to seek a declaration that plaintiff has perfected his possession by adverse possession as against the true owner. In other words, when a title is claimed on the strength of adverse possession, the presence of true owner is necessary which is not there in this case. ( 6. ) IN my view, therefore, plaintiff has failed to prove his prima facie case and hence, the injunction was rightly refused by the Trial Court. Since one of the main ingredient was not proved. Other two need not be examined because all the three ingredients namely- prima facie case, balance of con-venience and injury must coexists in the case, then only an injunction can be granted, else not. ( 7. ) APPEAL thus, fails and dismissed in limine. Misc. Appeal dismissed.