JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. 1. Being unsuccessful in connection with the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 filed in Title Suit No. 101 of 2012 and Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 2014, the plaintiff/petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer to set aside the impugned orders. 2. In the memo of appeal the petitioner contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the factual aspects of this case in its proper perspective. According to them one Asiruddin, the common ancestor got the properties by virtue of a registered deed of partition bearing no. 1772/1948 and after his death the suit property devolved upon his two wives Zabedan Bibi and Arzan Bibi and son Mantajuddin (the present defendant no. 1) and two daughters Jaynab Bibi and Rabeya. The said Rabeya died leaving behind her five sons of which one Murshed was the eldest son. After the death of Murshed his legal heirs i.e. plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and two daughters, namely, Manuwara and Hasna became the cosharers. Hasna died leaving behind Islamuddin and one daughter Rabeya Bibi, who are plaintiff Nos. 6 and 7. Manuwara Bibi is the plaintiff no. 5 Jaynab Bibi is the daughter of second wife of Asiruddin i.e. Arzan. That Jaynab Bibi died leaving proforma defendant Nos. 7 to 13 as her heirs. Genealogical tree is not disputed by the parties. 3. According to the plaintiff/petitioner when they feel difficulty to posses the suit property jointly, they have requested defendant no. 1 to make partition of the suit property. This time the defendant/opposite party (Mantaj Uddin) discloses that he is the absolute owner of the suit property on the strength of the deed of gift executed by the heirs of Asiruddin. The plaintiff stated that deed of gift was executed on 13.06.1981. It is the further case of the plaintiff/petitioner, that alleged deed of gift executed by Rabeya, Jaynab Bibi and Arzan had been executed by practicing fraud. They have specifically stated that Rabeya, Jaynab Bibi and Arzan were insane at the material point of time and they were under medical treatment. So the said deed cannot be treated as a sacrosanct one. 4. They have specifically stated that Rabeya, Jaynab Bibi and Arzan were insane at the material point of time and they were under medical treatment. So the said deed cannot be treated as a sacrosanct one. 4. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division as well as the learned Additional District Judge, Contai, I find that both the Courts below held that Mantajuddin is in possession on the basis of L.R.R.O.R. So, the learned Courts below declined to pass any order in favour of the present petitioner. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that when a triable issue has been raised, injunction order is the remedy. 6. He has also contended that if the defendant/opposite party is permitted to raise construction over the suit property in that case there will be multiplicity of proceedings. Learned Counsel Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the opposite party/ defendant has submitted that the orders impugned are quite unimpeachable and it do not require any interference from this Court. He further submitted that the opposite party/ defendant no. 1 is in possession which has been established from the L.R.R.O.R. That proposition has been observed by the learned First Appellate Court also. He further argued that this opposite party/defendant no. 1 is armed with a registered deed of gift executed by Rabeya, Jaynab Bibi and Arzan. Till the said deed of gift is declared null and void, the right of the defendant no. 1 to own and posses the suit land cannot be questioned. 7. Following judgments reported in Dalpat Kumar & Another v. Prahlad Singh & Others, AIR 1993 SC 276 , Mandali Ranganna & Others v. T. Ramachandra & Others, (2008) 11 SCC 1 , Unity Realty & Developers Ltd. v. Shri Amit Kumar Mitra & Others, 2010 (1) CHN (CAL) 597, Ramesh Vajabhai Rabari v. Pratiksha Real Estate Private, (2014) 12 SCC 190 , have been cited by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both sides. 8. I have gone through the said decisions. From the time immemorial it is settled by our Courts that while considering an application for grant of injunction, the Court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto viz. 8. I have gone through the said decisions. From the time immemorial it is settled by our Courts that while considering an application for grant of injunction, the Court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto viz. existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties. Grant of injunction is an equitable relief. It is to be judged also that grant or refusal of injunction has serious consequence depending upon the nature thereof. The existence of the prima facie right is not to be confused with the prima facie title which can be ascertained on the basis of evidence at the time of trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself can never be the sole ground to get an injunction order. Therefore, the onerous duty of the Court is to satisfy itself that non-interference by the Court would result in irreparable injury to the party seeking relief must establish that there is no other remedy available to the party except one grant to injunction. It is also a settled law that irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, which cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. This apart, the Court is to weigh the balance of convenience and inconvenience. Therefore, the Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise the judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that it is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status qua, an injunction would be issued. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles in the present case, I find that the defendant no. 1 is armed with a registered deed of gift and is also in possession. Therefore, if the injunction order is passed against him he would be highly prejudiced. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles in the present case, I find that the defendant no. 1 is armed with a registered deed of gift and is also in possession. Therefore, if the injunction order is passed against him he would be highly prejudiced. On the contrary, plaintiffs/ petitioners will not suffer that inconvenience if the injunction order is refused. Till today no suit has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner challenging the legality of the deed of gift which has been executed in favour of the defendant/opposite party. 10. Considering the circumstances, I find no merit in these revisional applications. Both the Courts below have come to a correct finding which should not be disturbed at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000. The impugned orders of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, First Court and learned Additional District Judge, Contai are hereby affirmed. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the respective learned Courts below for their information and taking necessary action in accordance with law. 13. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Revisional application is dismissed.