The court found that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant presented conflicting claims of ownership over the suit property, each supported by documents referencing different plot numbers. The 2nd defendant, from whom both claim to have acquired their interests, failed to clarify the true ownership by not filing pleadings. The court held that, at this interlocutory stage, it was not possible to determine who was legally entitled to the plot. As neither party produced conclusive evidence, such as a survey map, to identify the plot on the ground, the court was not satisfied that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with a probability of success. In light of the unresolved ownership and in accordance with established principles, the court determined that the appropriate course was to maintain the status quo, preventing any further developments or alienation of the property until the suit is heard and determined.