As per case facts... The writ petitioners obtained a restraining order from the High Court against their dispossession from a large tract of land by a State Corporation (TSIIC). The ... land's ownership was contested, deriving from a complex history of land ceiling, a sale agreement, and numerous unregistered or disputed conveyances over decades. The original owners appealed the injunction, claiming the writ petitioners lacked proven title or actual physical possession. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in granting an injunction against dispossession based merely on alleged possession and unregistered sale agreements, especially when the fundamental title was highly suspicious due to prior statutory vesting. Finally... The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction, restoring the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition. The Court noted the writ petitioners failed to prove valid title or actual physical possession and found the transaction history (e.g., conflicting sale agreements, non-registration) raised serious suspicion of fraud, which disentitled them from invoking the discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226.