JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. This appeal by defendant is directed against an order dated 14.03.2013 passed in O.S. No. 8650/2012, whereunder application filed by appellant/plaintiff under Order 39, Rules1 and 2, CPC, seeking injunction to restrain defendant from interfering from alleged possession of plaintiff has been dismissed and application filed by defendant under Order 39, Rule 4, CPC seeking for vacating the ad interim ex parte order of status quo has been allowed. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties namely Sri. P.S. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for appellant/plaintiff and Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. V. Javahar Babu, for respondent/defendant. Perused the order under challenge as also documents appended to appeal memorandum as well as statement of objections. 2. It is the contention of Sri. P.S. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for appellant that Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application of plaintiff and allowing the application filed by defendant for vacating order of status-quo and rejecting the application for injunction, inasmuch as revenue records relating to the property in question, which according to him is an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 196 measuring 16 guntas and to evidence this fact revenue records have been produced and non-consideration of this vital document in proper perspective has resulted in erroneously dismissing the application. He would further contend that defendant has not produced the plan for construction of house issued by the competent authority and there are no other documents to establish that defendant has acquired right, title and interest in respect of property in question and as such there was no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff. He would also contend that under a registered sale deed dated 22.10.2001, which came to be executed amongst sons of late Chowdappa and his wife, 16 guntas of land was allotted to appellant/plaintiff and as such, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal seeking relief of temporary injunction and for setting aside the order of Trial Court vacating ad interim ex parte order of status quo granted earlier. On these grounds he seeks for allowing the appeal by allowing the application for temporary injunction and setting aside the order of Trial Court vacating status-quo. 3. Per contra Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. On these grounds he seeks for allowing the appeal by allowing the application for temporary injunction and setting aside the order of Trial Court vacating status-quo. 3. Per contra Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Javahar Babu, for defendant/respondent would support the order of Trial Court and contend that very affidavit filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court seeking for temporary injunction would clearly indicate that plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and on this ground alone plaintiff would not be entitled to grant of temporary injunction. He would also contend that voluminous records produced by the plaintiff/appellant, would clearly indicate that plaintiff acquired the property under partition deed dated 10.12.1970 which came to be alienated by him to the predecessors in title of defendants, namely Krishna Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1970 vide document No. 4514/1070-71, pursuant to which he has formed a residential layout and sold a portion of same to this defendant under a sale deed dated 22.10.2001 and by virtue of which defendant has got the records mutated in her favour from Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'BBMP' for short) since property in question is now within the jurisdiction of said authority and she has also sunk a borewell in the said property, obtained electrical connection and entrusted construction work by entering into an agreement dated 01.10.2012 with the contractor, after obtaining approval of building plan from the jurisdictional authority of BBMP, which facts have been rightly taken note by Trial Court to reject the application for injunction and vacating the order of status-quo. Hence, he prays for dismissal of appeal. 4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of order under challenge as also records produced by respective parties, it would indicate that in the written statement filed by defendant a specific plea has been taken by defendant at paragraph 4 contending inter alia that property acquired by plaintiff under a registered partition deed dated 10.12.1970 (which is also the document which plaintiff claims to have acquired title to 16 guntas in survey No. 196) has been sold by him under a sale deed dated 23.12.1970 registered as document No. 4514/70-71. After such a plea having been taken, there is no plea by plaintiff by way of rejoinder denying said contention. After such a plea having been taken, there is no plea by plaintiff by way of rejoinder denying said contention. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent would draw the attention of Court to supplement his arguments to contend that when a plea has been taken that he is in possession of suit schedule property it was for the plaintiff to establish it before the Trial Court and as such, in the absence of such a plea Trial Court has rightly examined the rival contentions by considering the contours laid down while referring the order of injunction namely (i) prima facie case (ii) balance of convenience (iii) irreparable loss and injury being in favour of defendant. 5. In view of the fact that there is a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1970 executed by plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff to establish that recital found in the said sale deeds are incorrect. Section 92 of the Evidence Act is attracted to the fact on hand. A recital found in registered document will be presumed to be correct and as such, contention of Sri. P.S. Malipatil cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. 6. Insofar as merits of the case are concerned documents available on record would indicate that vendor of defendant has sold the property in question namely, a site measuring 40 ft x 50 ft bearing survey No. 196 under a registered sale deed dated 22.10.2001 as evidenced from the registered document produced along with the written statement, Khatha has been made over to the name of defendant as per khatha extract issued by the then Mahadevapura Municipal Council. On suit schedule property coming within the jurisdiction of BBMP, revenue records have been mutated to the name of defendant and she has also obtained a sanction plan which is duly approved by the Assistant Executive Engineer -- BBMP. She has sunk a borewell in suit schedule property as per the work completion certificate dated 26.03.2012. She has also obtained electricity connection to suit schedule property as evidenced from the receipts produced before the Trial Court, as well as before this Court. The construction agreement dated 01.10.2012 when perused along with the photographs produced by the defendant would indicate that construction work on suit schedule property is on the verge of completion and it is adjacent to the properties, which are fully developed as could be seen from the photographs. The construction agreement dated 01.10.2012 when perused along with the photographs produced by the defendant would indicate that construction work on suit schedule property is on the verge of completion and it is adjacent to the properties, which are fully developed as could be seen from the photographs. As such, Very say of plaintiff about suit schedule property as well as abutting adjacent property has continued to be agricultural is contrary to facts. The voluminous documents produced before the court below which is also been referred to in the statement of objections filed by respondent before this Court, would clearly indicate a prima facie case is in favour of defendant and in the event of an order of temporary injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff, it would cause irreparable loss and injury to the defendant/respondent and it cannot be compensated in terms of money, particularly when construction work is on the verge of completion. The loss that would be caused to the defendant would be much more than loss that will be caused to plaintiff, inasmuch as prima facie plaintiff has divested himself of his title by virtue of sale deed executed by him which is registered as document No. 4514/70-71. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order of Trial Court rejecting the application filed by plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. Yet another fact which requires to be noticed by this Court is as per document No. 4514/70-71 filed by defendant, it would; indicate that plaintiff has got the revenue, records mutated to his name just prior to the filing of suit i.e., on 21.09.2012 in respect of erstwhile agricultural land bearing survey No. 196 measuring 16 guntas and this itself would clearly go to show that plaintiff in order to have unjustful claim against defendant has sought for an order of injunction, which has been rightly refused by the Trial Court. In the result following is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is hereby dismissed. ii. Order dated 14.03.2013 passed by XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 8650/2012, is hereby affirmed. iii. Parties to bear their respective costs.