JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals are by the plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of the application for grant of an order of temporary injunction in two suits which had been filed seeking for grant of a decree of permanent injunction. 2. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they had purchased 1 acre 2 guntas and 1 acre 10 guntas in Old Sy.No.13 which has been given New Sy.No.84, under two Sale Deeds dated 02.05.2016. It was their case that the revenue entries were changed in their favour and subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner had also passed an order permitting them to use the agricultural land for non-agricultural use by two orders, both dated 14.06.2017. It was their case that an attempt was made by the defendants to interfere with their possession and consequently they were constrained to file a suit and seek for a decree of injunction. 3. This suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement which were identical. The defendants, however, did not set up a plea that they had title over the said property. The only defense put forth by the defendants was one of complete denial of the case of the plaintiffs. 4. The Trial Court, on consideration of the materials produced before it, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were unable to show as to whether they had purchased any portion of Sy.No.13 and therefore, they were not entitled for grant of an injunction. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that when the Deputy Commissioner himself had granted permission to use the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose by an order dated 14.06.2017, the Trial Court could not have come to the conclusion that no acceptable material was produced to show that they had purchased any portion of Sy.No.13 which was renumbered as Sy.No.84. He submitted that revenue entries produced also indicated the possession of plaintiffs over the suit property. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, on the other hand, contended that the order of the Trial Court could not be found fault with since there was a serious dispute regarding identity of the property. 7. It cannot be in dispute that there are Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiffs which were both dated 02.05.2016. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, on the other hand, contended that the order of the Trial Court could not be found fault with since there was a serious dispute regarding identity of the property. 7. It cannot be in dispute that there are Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiffs which were both dated 02.05.2016. It cannot also be in dispute that pursuant to the Sale Deed, the Deputy Commissioner had also permitted the plaintiffs to use the land for non-agricultural purpose by two separate orders dated 14.06.2017. Further, the revenue entries in respect of the suit schedule property also stood in the name of the plaintiffs, thereby indicating their possession. 8. The defendants, on the other hand, have not produced any document to establish that they had any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Apart from a general denial of all the averments, they have not produced any acceptable material to show that they were in possession over any portion of Sy.No.13. 9. In my view, having regard to the fact that there are registered Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, which are followed by orders of conversion in their favour, the Trial Court could not have refused the order of injunction especially when the defendants had not even pleaded that they had title over the suit properties and were also unable to establish any semblance of right over the suit schedule property. 10. It may also be pertinent to state here that even according to the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, phodi in respect of suit schedule property was set aside by the revenue authorities on 25.07.2017 and therefore an order of temporary injunction was rightly refused. This order of setting aide the podi, is obviously, an order made after the Deputy Commissioner granted the order of conversion on 14.6.2017. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs was quick to point out that this order of the revenue authorities has actually been stayed by this Court in W.P.No.36170/2017. 12. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, in my view, the plaintiffs have made out a case for grant of an order of injunction and the Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunction because the identity of the property was in dispute. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. 13. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, in my view, the plaintiffs have made out a case for grant of an order of injunction and the Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunction because the identity of the property was in dispute. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. 13. There shall be an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. Appeal is accordingly allowed.