C. A. V. ORDER 1. The plaintiffs-appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 8.11.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, III, Khagaria in Title Suit No. 103 of 2009 by which the petition dated 13.10.2009 for grant of injunction in favour of plaintiffs has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs did not fulfill any ingredient for injunction. 2. The plaintiffs-appellants filed Title Suit No. 103 of 2009 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and in the event of forceful dispossession during the pendency of the suit possession of the plaintiffs be recovered through the process of the Court as well as for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by the defendant 1st Set (respondent nos. 1 to 8) for Schedule-B property of the plaint in favour of the defendant 2nd party (respondent nos. 9 to 15) to be illegal void ab initio without jurisdiction and they do not confirm any right, title or interest in favour of defendant 2nd party. It was further prayed that the defendant be restrained permanently from making any interference with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land as well as cost and other reliefs. 3. The case of plaintiffs, in brief, is that Late Chaman Rai was common ancestor of plaintiffs and he had two sons, namely, Talebar Rai and Bhogi Rai. Bhogi Rai died issueless, whereas, Talebar Rai died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Hans Raj Rai, Meharban Rai and Dahu Rai. Bhogi Rai and Talebar Rai while alive constituted joint family and acquired 6 bigha & 18 kathas of land bearing Tauzi No. 1851 of Mauza Katghara in auction purchase vide rent suit no. 567/174 of 1914-15 and came in possession on 9.10.1915 by delivery of possession in execution case and perfected their right, title, interest and possession over the same which continued till date without any interruption and name of Bhogi was mutated in serista of Ex-land lord and after his death heirs of Talebar Rai continued in possession. Dahu Rai, son of late Talebar Rai while alive acquired 16 bigha, 1 katha out of total areas 40 Bigha 1 Katha from Babu Giridhari Singh, son of late Babu Dayal Singh of Hussainabad (Khagaria) vide registered Sale deed No. 105 dated 22.1.1892 and after the same he perfected his right, title and interest over the same. Dahu Rai, son of late Talebar Rai while alive acquired 16 bigha, 1 katha out of total areas 40 Bigha 1 Katha from Babu Giridhari Singh, son of late Babu Dayal Singh of Hussainabad (Khagaria) vide registered Sale deed No. 105 dated 22.1.1892 and after the same he perfected his right, title and interest over the same. At the time of execution of the sale deeds there was no khata number or plot number but the land was identified by Tauzi number and boundary thereof. Since the same is before the operation of cadastral survey and the land was of Tauzi No. 1898 within the boundaries. After vesting of zamindari the land remained to be part of Tauzi no. 1898 and 1851 and ancestors of plaintiffs paid rent to the State of Bihar continuously and rent receipt was issued to them. Although Jamabandi has been created in favour of the ancestor of defendants-1st party but the plaintiffs remained in possession with the above land and ancestor of defendant- 1st Party never came in possession over any portion of the land. After that jamabandi created in favour of ancestor of defendant- 1st set. Defendant 1st set without any title and to cause loss to the plaintiffs illegally executed seven sale deeds in a span of 1 and ½ months in favour of defendant 2nd set out of the part of aforesaid land. The sale deeds are so fabricated and the same did not derive any right, title, interest and possession in favour of 2nd party and these lands have been mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint. The suit land also includes Plot No. 993, Khata No. 191 of Mauza Katghara purchased by plaintiff no. 1 on 22.6.1964 executed by Mahabir Prasad Sah and he is coming in possession. His name has been mutated vide Jamabandi No. 13 and they are also getting rent receipt after execution in favour of defendant 2nd party. The purchasers are trying hard to dispossess plaintiffs from the suit land. The further case of the plaintiffs is that although jamabandi was created in favour of defendant 1st party on wrong facts, there is no basis for such jamabandi, and they have no right, title & interest. 4. A petition dated 13.10.2009 was filed on behalf of plaintiffs for grant of injunction. Rejoinder to it was filed. According to defendant nos. The further case of the plaintiffs is that although jamabandi was created in favour of defendant 1st party on wrong facts, there is no basis for such jamabandi, and they have no right, title & interest. 4. A petition dated 13.10.2009 was filed on behalf of plaintiffs for grant of injunction. Rejoinder to it was filed. According to defendant nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiffs have failed to connect the land mentioned in Schedule-B and it has not been disclosed by the plaintiffs as to which land was purchased in auction by the ancestors of the plaintiffs on 22.1.1892. The plaintiffs have no connection with Schedule- B land. The plaintiffs have also failed to state as to which land was purchased and what is the physical status of the land. Jamabandi has been created in favour of defendant 1st Set which shows that the ancestor of the plaintiffs had no concern with the land. If the ancestor of the plaintiffs would have title over the land, jamabandi should have been created in their name. Since title of the plaintiffs over the suit land is doubtful, no prima facie case is made out in his favour nor there is balance of convenience in their favour, as such the injunction petition is fit to be dismissed. The plaintiffs 2nd set has also stated that they have purchased the land from the rightful owner and the case of injunction is not in favour of the plaintiffs. 5. Defendant no. 8 Braj Nandan Prasad @ Braj Nandan Pd. Singh, the member of defendant 1st party filed separate written statement and he has accepted the possession of Bhogi Rai and his descendants over the land in question. He has accepted the claim of the plaintiffs over the suit land. He has also stated that the family of defendant 1st Set have no concern with the suit land and they never paid rent for the same. Though their names might have been entered in the jamabandi register, but they have no concern with the suit land and they have wrongly been arrayed as defendants. He has also stated that the family of defendant 1st Set have no concern with the suit land and they never paid rent for the same. Though their names might have been entered in the jamabandi register, but they have no concern with the suit land and they have wrongly been arrayed as defendants. It was further stated that the defendant 1st Set never put any claim over the suit land though about one year ago a proposal was put forward by the defendant 2nd party to execute the sale deed in their favour on pretext of jamabandi, but they have told that their names entered in jamabandi register without any link with any connected title deed and they have come to know about Jamabandi Panji in their favour from defendant 2nd party. After considering the plea on behalf of both the parties, learned Sub-judge rejected the petition dated 13.10.2009 for grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. Learned counsel for plaintiffs-appellants has submitted that the land was purchased by the ancestor of the plaintiffs in auction sale. Dahu Rai, the ancestor of plaintiffs has purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 105 dated 22.1.1892. At the time of execution of sale deed there was no khata or plot number but the land was identified by tauzi and boundary thereof as the same was purchased prior to the operation of the cadestral survey. 7. He has further submitted that it is apparent from the pleadings of both the parties that defendant 1st party claimed the land, in question, on the basis of jamabandi which has no any basis. It is settled principle of law that an entry in the record of rights neither creates nor extinguishes rights nor does an omission of entry affects the rights of the parties. Irrespective of the entry in the records of rights, the owner of the land remains the owner, the person in possession remains to be so unless ousted in due course of law. In support of his contention he has relied upon a full bench decision in the case of Nand Kumar Rai & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1973 BBCJ IV- 841 (paragraph 24). He has also submitted that in case of Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. In support of his contention he has relied upon a full bench decision in the case of Nand Kumar Rai & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1973 BBCJ IV- 841 (paragraph 24). He has also submitted that in case of Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1496 it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 4 after considering a number of decisions that “ mutation of names in the revenue records are not evidence of title though may be relevant for other purposes……” 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that at the time of grant of injunction, the plaintiffs need not establish their title. It is enough if they can say that they have a fair question to raise as to the existence of right which they allege and can satisfy that the property in dispute should be preserved in its present actual condition until such question can be disposed of. A mere existence of a doubt as to the plaintiffs’ right to the property does not itself constitute a sufficient ground for refusing an injunction though it is always a circumstance which calls for attention of the Court. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision in the case of Brajendra Nath Ghosh & Ors. vs. Smt. Kashi Bai & Ors., reported in AIR (33) 1946 Patna 177. 9. He has further submitted that for proper adjudication, the subject matter of the suit must be preserved. In this case it has been noticed that within a short span of time i.e. between 11.7.2009 to 29.8.2009, the defendants 1st set have executed 8 sale deeds as such the subject matter, land in question, must be preserved during the pendency of the suit. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision in the case of Dharam Nath Ojha & Ors. vs. Raghunath Ojha, reported in 2001 (2) PLJR 268 in which it has been held that it is well settled that if a lis has been admitted for adjudication then it becomes the duty of the Court to preserve the subject matter of the litigation by an appropriate order, so that the same is available at the time of final adjudication and the decree does not become a barren one. 10. 10. Learned counsel for respondents has submitted that jamabandi was created in favour of defendant 1st set. Zamindar filed return in favour of ancestor of defendant no. 1. Defendant 1st set has been paying rent. Plaintiffs claim title over their land by auction purchase but they have failed to prove regarding identification of the land. Jamabandi was created in favour of defendant 1st set but the plaintiffs did not take any step for cancellation of the same. After jamabandi the defendants 1st set have been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The defendant 2nd Set has purchased the land prior to filing of the suit. No injunction can be granted until the sale deed is set aside. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision in the case of Jagannath Prasad Sinha @ Jagarnath Prasad Singh vs. Pinky Chaudhary & Ors. reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 695 . 11. Learned counsel for respondents has further submitted that the plaintiffs do not fulfil the requirements for order of ad interim injunction, as such the Court below has rightly refused such prayer. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision in the case of Prabhu Datta Singh & Ors. vs. Manorma Singh & Ors., reported in 2014(1) PLJR 354 . 12. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on considering the material on record, it appears that the plaintiffs have claimed the land in dispute on the basis of sale deed in favour of their ancestor, but there is no khata and plot number of the land in question. It is settled principle of law that the land can also be identified by boundary. The boundary of the land in dispute has been mentioned. The defendants have claimed their right on the land in dispute on the basis of entry of their name in jamabandi. The title has been claimed by the defendant 1st set only on the basis of jamabandi. . It is settled principle of law that an entry in the record of rights neither creates nor extinguishes rights nor does an omission of entry affects the rights of the parties as it has been held by this Court in the Full Bench decision reported in 1973 BBCJ IV- 841. On the other hand, plaintiffs have been able to show that they have been in possession in the land in question. On the other hand, plaintiffs have been able to show that they have been in possession in the land in question. The defendant 1st set has transferred the land mentioned in Schedule-B of the plaint in favour of defendant 2nd set in hot haste within a period of more than a month. It is the duty of the Court to preserve the subject matter of the suit in view of the decision reported in 2001 (2) PLJR 268 . 13. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. 14. Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as existing today during the pendency of the title suit. 15. It has been submitted on behalf of both the parties that they are ready to co-operate the Court for early disposal of the suit itself, as such learned court below is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of nine months. 16. This order will not cause prejudice to any party. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed with the above observation and direction. 18. No order as to costs.