JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2020 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Ratlam whereby the miscellaneous appeal filed by the defendant has been allowed. Facts of the case in short are as under: 2. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC (IA no.01/18) contending that he is the owner of 3/4th part of the suit land but it has wrongly been recorded in the name of the defendant as owner of 1/2th share and the defendant be restrained from interfering into his peaceful possession and alienating the suit property. The respondent/defendant filed the written statement as well as counter claim to the effect that he is the co-sharer and in possession of share of the suit land and the plaintiff be restrained from interfering into his peaceful possession. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC (IA No.01/19). The plaintiff and defendant are real brothers being the sons of Hurji. Hurji and Humla were two real brothers being the sons of Ramji. Humla was married to Alku, who died in the year 1996. According to the plaintiff, he was adopted by Smt.Alku, therefore, he is entitled for share of Humla and also share in the land of Hurji in total 3/4th share in the property of Ramji but the revenue authorities have wrongly recorded the entire 28-29 bigha land, 1/2-1/2 in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant. In the year 1999 after the death of Hurji the partition was recorded by the Tahsildar in the revenue record and according to which the land survey No.3/2, area 0.370 hectare, survey No.78, area 1.280 hectare , survey No.79/1, area 1.23 hectare, total area 2.880 hectare of Gram Khamkhai was recorded in the name of plaintiff and the land survey No.3/1, area 0.366 hectare, survey No.79/2, area 1.420 hectare and survey No.80, area 1.110 hectare, total area 2.890 hectares of Gram Khamkhai was recorded in the name of defendant Veersingh. According to the plaintiff, the defendant Veersingh was in govt. service, therefore, he was residing outside the village and never came to village Khamkhai and the plaintiff remained in possession of the entire land and still cultivating the same. According to the plaintiff, the defendant Veersingh was in govt. service, therefore, he was residing outside the village and never came to village Khamkhai and the plaintiff remained in possession of the entire land and still cultivating the same. Now the defendant came in December, 2018 to the village and started disputing the ownership of the plaintiff, hence cause of action accrued in his favour to file the suit. According to the plaintiff, no partition has ever taken place between the plaintiff and defendant and he is in possession of the entire land left by grandfather Ramji and by way of succession he is entitled for 3/4th share in the land of Ramji. 3. The defendant filed the written statement by submitting that the plaintiff was never adopted by Humla. After the death of Humla and Alku, Hurji became the owner of the entire land and after the death of Hurji, the same was divided equally between the plaintiff and defendant and he used to visit Gram Khamkhai and managed to cultivate the land. Now the plaintiff dishonestly wants to take possession of his land, hence he be restrained. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 04.10.2019 learned Civil Judge has allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff and rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the defendant. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant preferred a miscellaneous appeal and vide order dated 25.01.2020 the Additional District Judge has allowed the appeal and restrained the plaintiff from interfering into the possession of the land recorded in the name of the defendant i.e. the land survey No.3/1, area 0.366 hectare, survey No.79/2, area 1.420 hectare and survey No.80, area 1.110 hectare, total area 2.890 hectares of Gram Khamkhai, hence the present petition before this Court. 6. Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant was in govt. job and now mala fidely he is trying to interfere in to the possession of the plaintiff. Since the defendant was in govt. service, hence he never came to village Khamkhai and the plaintiff was managing the entire land. He was adopted by Humla and Alku, therefore, he has got their share in the suit property and being the son of Hurji, he is entitled for share more. Since the defendant was in govt. service, hence he never came to village Khamkhai and the plaintiff was managing the entire land. He was adopted by Humla and Alku, therefore, he has got their share in the suit property and being the son of Hurji, he is entitled for share more. Being a government employee the defendant got recorded share of suit land in his name and the plaintiff being an illiterate person was not aware about the recording of name of defendant in the revenue record. No partition has ever been taken place. The first appellate Court ought not have interfered into the order of temporary injunction unless the order suffers from perversity. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgment in the case of Suman Chouksey vs. Dinesh Kumar and others reported in 2019 (4) MPLJ 393 . 7. I have perused the record filed along with the writ petition. 8. According to the plaintiff, he was adopted by Humla and Alku, therefore, he has inherited their share of Humla in the property left by Ramji but no document along with the plaint about the adoption has been filed hence now it is a matter of evidence. Initially, the plaintiff came up with the plea that the Humla and Alku died issue less but he himself filed an affidavit of daughter of Humla in his favour, therefore, it is also a matter of evidence as to whether the plaintiff was adopted or Humla and Alku are having a daughter. If Humla and Alku died issue less then after their death the entire property was succeeded by Hurji. Hurji died in the year 1999 and the plaintiff and defendant being the sons Hurji are entitled to get 1/2-1/2 share in the property. Since 1999 the entire property is recorded equally in the name of plaintiff and defendant and after so many years in the year 2018 the plaintiff filed the suit and disputing the revenue entries. There are number of issues which require consideration on the basis of evidence. As on today the defendant is a recorded owner of land survey No.3/1, area 0.366 hectare, survey No.79/2, area 1.420 hectare and survey No.80, area 1.110 hectare, total area 2.890 hectares of Gram Khamkhai which is exactly of the entire ancestral land, therefore, the first appellate Court has rightly granted the injunction in favour of defendant. As on today the defendant is a recorded owner of land survey No.3/1, area 0.366 hectare, survey No.79/2, area 1.420 hectare and survey No.80, area 1.110 hectare, total area 2.890 hectares of Gram Khamkhai which is exactly of the entire ancestral land, therefore, the first appellate Court has rightly granted the injunction in favour of defendant. There cannot be an injunction against a true owner. The plaintiff did not challenge the revenue entries on the revenue side and directly filed the civil suit after so many years, therefore, as on today the plaintiff and defendant both are entitled to get 1/2-1/2 share in the family property which has already been recorded in the revenue record. 9. So far the issue of possession as well as who is cultivating the land is concerned, same are also a matter of evidence which cannot be decided on the basis of revenue entries, hence no case for interference is made out in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.