JUDGMENT Defendant No.1 has come up in miscellaneous appeal under Order 3 Rule 1 MC.P. Code against an order, dated 19.9.2002, passed by learned Vth Additional District Judge, Ujjain in C.S. No. 57 A of 2002, whereby an application made by the plaintiff under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P. Code seeking injunction is allowed. The short question is, whether lower Court was justified in alowing it. On the strength of an agreement, dated 17.7.1997, the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) has filed a suit for specific performance of contract for purchase of suit land (1,882 Hectares). The suit is filed on 13.6.2002. It is alleged inter alia that defendants who are father and sons (defendant No.1 is the father and 2, 3 and 4 are sons) have agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a total sum of Rs. 1,80,000. It is alleged that out of Rs.1,80,000/- the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- in cash and accordingly, plaintiff was placed in possession of the suit land. It is then alleged that balance of Rs. 48,000/- was to be paid in 10 years by instalment of Rs. 500/-. It is alleged that on 21.4.2002, the defendants made attempt to disturb plaintiff's possession over the suit land and hence, notice dated 8.5.2002 was served on the defendants followed by suit to claim specific performance. It is in this suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction claiming that since he is in possession of suit land, his possession be not disturbed. The defendants filed their reply. They have come out with a case of total denial. According to them and in particular defendant No.1 (father) he has not entered into any agreement, with the plaintiff, not does the agreement bears his signature. He claimed to be in possession of the land since beginning. Parties then filed affidavits of some persons to support their case to show that they are in possession of the suit land. The trial Court allowed the application in favour of plaintiff and grant injunction holding plaintiff to be in possession of the land. It is against this order, the defendant No.1 (father of defendant. Nos. 2 to 4) is in appeal. Heard Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.C. Chhajed, learned counsel for the respondents. The trial Court allowed the application in favour of plaintiff and grant injunction holding plaintiff to be in possession of the land. It is against this order, the defendant No.1 (father of defendant. Nos. 2 to 4) is in appeal. Heard Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.C. Chhajed, learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case. 1 am inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. In my opinion, the plaintiff has failed to show that he has paid a huge consideration of Rs. 1,32,000/- in cash to the defendant before obtaining the alleged possession of the suit land. There is absolutely no evidence tendered by the plaintiff to prove this material issue. Except to rely upon the recital in an agreement, there is no other documentary evidence. It is not in dispute that defendant has denied the very existence of an agreement and has contended in the written statement that no such agreement was ever entered into by the defendant No.1, nor has he ever handed over possession of the suit land to plaintiff much less pursuant to alleged agreement, not he has signed any such agreement. In a case like the one when the case of defendant is that of total denial, the plaintiff is required to tender adequate prima facie proof burden being exclusively upon him alongwith his injunction application itself so as to satisfy the conscious of Court that there exists an agreement of sale, it is duly signed by the defendant No.1 that plaintiff has paid part of sale consideration pursuant to terms of agreement to defendant and has accordingly performed his part of contract. It is necessary for the plaintiff to tender adequate proof that he has paid a sum of Rs. 1, 37.000 in cash to defendant. A sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- is a huge consideration. Had it been paid by cheque or Draft, to defendant No.1, then it would have been a best piece of evidence to show that parties really intended to enter into a sale transaction of suit land and pursuant to which, received a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- by way of part of sale consideration. 1,37,000/- is a huge consideration. Had it been paid by cheque or Draft, to defendant No.1, then it would have been a best piece of evidence to show that parties really intended to enter into a sale transaction of suit land and pursuant to which, received a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- by way of part of sale consideration. It is not clear for want of any evidence tendered at this stage as to whether plaintiff paid this sum and if so whether, he was in a position to pay on the alleged date and if so from where he arranged· to pay. Had the defendants admitted the existence of execution of agreement and also its recitals then position would have been different. In such circumstances, the burden of plaintiff to tender evidence of this nature gets reduced. When I see the agreement, it contains scoring by hand at some places where signatures are made. This requires proof. It is possible only when evidence is led on merits in the suit. In my opinion, primafacie the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of agreement though it is alleged to be signed by defendant. Once I held that agreement in question is not primafacie proved, then it follows that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land pursuant to alleged agreement. The self speaking affidavits of some person without there being any documentary evidence to support the factum of plaintiff being in possession or paying money cannot be relied upon. I disbelieve them. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment I decree is set aside. As a result, the injunction application made by the plaintiff is rejected. It is made clear that observations made by this Court in this appeal are tentative in the sense that were made prior to leading of evidence on merits. The trial Court will decide the suit on merits on the basis of evidence that may be brought on record by the parties -- a stage which is yet to come. No costs.