Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is defendants appeal against the order dated 1-5-2004 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 33-A/2004 allowing the plaintiffs application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated : The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that he is owner of the suit land situated in Jabalpur city on the basis of registered sale deed dated 7-3-1972 and since then he is in possession of the same. He being a businessman had to frequently visit various places out of Jabalpur. In order to protect, supervise and sell his land a registered power of attorney was executed by him on 28-4-89 in favour of defendant No. 2. As one Khasra number was left to be mentioned in the said power of attorney another power of attorney was executed in his favour on 4-10-90. On the basis of power of attorney the defendant No. 2 sold part of the land but did not pay him the amount so received. Therefore, he was left with no option but to cancel the power of attorney. Accordingly, he cancelled the power of attorney given to defendant No. 2 vide registered document dated 24-5-2002. He informed about cancellation of power of attorney to the defendant No. 2 vide notice dated 10-7-2002. Thereafter, the cancellation of the power of attorney was also notified on 7-9-2003 in local news paper "dainik Bhaskar". In spite of the cancellation of the power of attorney the defendant No. 2 executed a sale deed on 17-9-2003 in favour of his son defendant No. 1. Plaintiff sought relief of declaration of the sale deed dated 17-9-2003 to be null and void. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this application the plaintiff stated that he is owner and in possession of the suit land, his name is recorded in the Revenue records, the defendant No. 2 on the basis of the power of attorney which was already cancelled had no right to sale the land, accordingly, prayed for temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from making construction on the suit land and interfering in his possession. ( 3. ( 3. ) THE appellants/defendants filed their reply and contended that, on 28-4-89 the plaintiff being in the need of money sold the suit land to the defendant No. 2 and executed an agreement and also a power of attorney. Since one Khasra number was left to be mentioned in the said power of attorney on 4-10-90 another power of attorney was executed. It was further stated that the plaintiff sold and handed over the possession of the entire land for Rs. 20,000/- to the defendant No. 2 vide agreement dated 28-4-89, therefore, the plaintiff has no right or title in the land. ( 4. ) ON the basis of the averments made by the parties and the documents filed by them the learned Trial Court held that the alleged agreement dated 28-4-89 is not duly stamped as it bears stamp of only Rs. 5/ -. The Trial Court after considering the alleged agreement, the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 2, the sale deed dated 17-9-2003 executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of his son defendant No. 1 in which also ownership and possession of the land being of plaintiff finds mention and also the Khasra entries from the year 1997 to 2002 recording possession of the plaintiffs on the suit land found plaintiff has prima facie case. The Trial Court also held that since the plaintiff is owner of the land and is in possession, apart from prima facie case, the balance of convenience, is also in his favour, and it also held that if during the pendency of the suit the defendants are not restrained from making constructions on the suit land and if the plaintiff is dispossessed he will suffer irreparable loss. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants/defendants placing much emphasis on the agreement dated 28-4-89 has contended that from the agreement it is clear that the plaintiff sold the entire land for Rs. 20,000/- which were paid to the defendant No. 2 prior to the execution of the agreement. He further submitted that in view of the recital in the agreement giving all the rights of the suit land to the defendant No. 2 it is imperative that possession has also been handed over to the defendant No. 2. 20,000/- which were paid to the defendant No. 2 prior to the execution of the agreement. He further submitted that in view of the recital in the agreement giving all the rights of the suit land to the defendant No. 2 it is imperative that possession has also been handed over to the defendant No. 2. In this view, he contended that the defendant No. 2 became absolute owner of the suit land and he has full right to sell it. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and contended that the plaintiff in his plaint has specifically denied the execution of any agreement to sell the land to the defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs case is that the alleged document dated 28-4-89 is fabricated one. He contended that the defendant No. 2 taking undue advantage of the power of attorney, executed the sale deed in favour of his son, though the power of attorney was already cancelled. ( 7. ) ADMITTEDLY by registered sale deed dated 7-3-1972 the plaintiff purchased the suit land and his name is recorded in Khasra entries upto 2002. The case of the defendant No. 2 is that he became owner of the suit land on the basis of an agreement dated 28-4-89 executed by the plaintiff in his favour. The plaintiff has disputed the execution of this agreement. This un-registered agreement is bearing stamp of only Rs. 5/ -. Both the parties are one on the point that a power of attorney was executed on 28-4-89 and thereafter since one Khasra number left to be mentioned a supplementary of power of attorney was executed on 4-10-90. It is the case of the defendant No. 2 that by agreement dated 28-4-89 he acquired all the rights and was handed over possession of the land. ( 8. ) IN the power of attorney dated 4-10-90 not only it is mentioned that the plaintiff is owner but it is also mentioned that he is in possession of the land. When as alleged by the defendant No. 2 that he was given all rights even the possession of the suit land vide agreement executed on 28-4-89 there was no occasion to mention about possession being of plaintiff in the power of attorney dated 4-10-90. When as alleged by the defendant No. 2 that he was given all rights even the possession of the suit land vide agreement executed on 28-4-89 there was no occasion to mention about possession being of plaintiff in the power of attorney dated 4-10-90. Thus it can not be said that possession was given to the defendant No. 2 on 28-4-89. Moreover at the bottom of agreement dated 28-4-89 there is mention "received Rs. 20,000/-". While in the body of it there is recital to the effect that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- had already been paid to the plaintiff, this prima facie appears to be contradictory. On the basis of such document, prima facie, it can not be said that the defendant No. 2 has acquired any right of ownership or that he was handed over the possession of the suit land. The genuineness of the agreement is under challenge. The registered sale deed of the year 1972 and the Khasra entries pertaining to the year 2002 much after the alleged agreement dated 28-4-89, prima facie establishes the plaintiffs possession oh the suit land. ( 9. ) IN this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has committed no error in allowing the application filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction. While dealing with the application for temporary injunction the discretion vested in the Trial Court has rightly been exercised by it, applying correct principles of law for granting temporary injunction, in such circumstances I find no ground to interfere in the order of the Trial Court. ( 10. ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is having no merit and as such the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.