JUDGMENT N V Anjaria, J. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rajesh C. Kakkad for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Nalin Thakkar for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 died during the pendency whose heirs were not joined by the petitioner. 2. In this petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the challenge is directed against judgment and order dated 15th October, 2011 of learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.05 of 2008. The appeal came to be dismissed, in turn order dated 27th November, 2007 passed by learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch below injunction application Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.534 of 2006, whereby the injunction was refused, came to be confirmed. 3. The petitioners-original plaintiffs instituted the suit on 24th November, 2006 for relief of declaration and permanent injunction, further to get set aside the registered sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant nos.3 and 4 in respect of suit agricultural land bearing Survey No.709, identified as Jangaro situated at Jawaharnagar in Bhuj Taluka. The case of the plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint was that the said land belonged to their forefathers and the possession thereof continued with them since years together. Measurement was carried out in the year 1971 by the District Land Revenue Office in which the name of the father of the petitioner Jesa Ruda was reflected while said Jesa Ruda is now deceased since long. It was stated that crops were grown. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that they came to know about execution of sale deed in respect of the suit land by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4. It was stated that the contents of the sale deed was wrongly mentioned as regards the way passing between the Survey No.709 and Survey No.710 and that the Survey No.709 was wrongly mentioned. It was contended that defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs, who claimed to be in possession though the plaintiffs were in possession. 3.1 Along with the suit, application came to be filed for injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. It was contended that defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs, who claimed to be in possession though the plaintiffs were in possession. 3.1 Along with the suit, application came to be filed for injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and also contested the interim injunction application contending that they had acquired possession by virtue of registered sale deed and raised other grounds to oppose the prayer for injunction. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court both, dismissed the prayer for interim injunction. 4. It was tried to be asserted by learned advocate for the petitioners-plaintiffs that the plaintiffs were in possession since long and that their possession was "settled possession". Seeking to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769 it was submitted that settled possession gives right to possession and that even rightful owner may recover possession only by taking recourse to law. 5. The only injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs being to restrain the defendants from interfering the possession by claiming possession, the aspect of possession was a moot issue to be considered at the interim stage by the court below. Certain bearing aspects came out from the facts and record which could be taken into account by the courts below. The defendants' case was that the suit land was of the ownership of one Bachu Jusa Hajam since 1961 and in the year 1966, the heirship entry was mutated and that this was never objected by the plaintiffs. The defendants purchased the land by registered sale transaction after giving public notice in the newspaper and since the execution of the sale deed, they became owner and have been in possession. 5.1 What was clear came to be noted by the lower appellate court that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 sale deed dated 03rd January, 2006 which was produced at Mark 3/5 on record. It was after lapse of 10 months from the sale deed in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 that the suit came to be instituted by the plaintiffs in which they asserted their possession and ownership. It was after lapse of 10 months from the sale deed in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 that the suit came to be instituted by the plaintiffs in which they asserted their possession and ownership. The case with which the plaintiffs came out in suit that the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 was executed by mentioning wrong Survey No.709 and that in fact it was a document relating to Survey No.692. 5.2 The courts below did not find any supportive aspect or document having decisive bearing to believe the say of the plaintiffs. While the title could be shown by the defendants by virtue of sale deed Mark 3/5 in their favour, it was rival claim of possession of the land which was to be addressed at the interim stage in the context of the interim prayer, for which the both the courts below found that the petitioners could not show any document or evidence to conclusively establish their possession, nor any title related document could be produced by the plaintiffs. 5.3 When the document of sale Mark 3/5 was appreciated, it was in respect of land bearing Survey No.709 and that it was duly executed in favour of the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs that the wrong survey number was mentioned in the sale deed, that the sale deed was of Survey No.692 and not of Survey No.709, that the names of the defendants were wrongly shown in the revenue record and the claim of possession, were without any foundation of cogent evidence. Since the plaintiffs failed to support the claim of the possession with acceptable evidence and the weight of evidence was against them because of which their case for possession was not accepted, the decision in Rame Gowda pressed into service by the petitioners would have no applicability. 5.4 The question of possession is a question of fact and the courts below rightly appreciated the documents produced by the parties to come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs' possession was not established, rather the defendants could show their possessory right which would follow the title document of registered sale deed. 5.5 The findings recorded by both the courts are concurrent, based on proper consideration and weighing of materials before them. No irregularity, perversity or misreading of the evidence could be noticed. 6. 5.5 The findings recorded by both the courts are concurrent, based on proper consideration and weighing of materials before them. No irregularity, perversity or misreading of the evidence could be noticed. 6. In view of above discussion, the finding regarding possession recorded by the courts below concurrently for the purpose of refusing the interim injunction to the plaintiffs, is not liable to be questioned or interfered with. The conclusion and the findings in so far as the interim injunction stage is concerned, are properly arrived at. It is needless to state that this finding stands at the stage of interim injunction application and shall be subject to the further evidence and the establishment of case in the trial. No other relief could be considered for the petitioners-plaintiffs as the only prayer in Exh.5 application was to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, which was not believed by the courts below and the factum of possession was not found with the plaintiffs. 7. Resultantly, the petition fails and stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.