The court found that the plaintiff, as the registered owner of the disputed parcel, established a prima facie case with a probability of success, particularly as there was no evidence of an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the land. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, as he was not in possession and the defendant was shown to be in possession. On the balance of convenience, the court determined that it favored preserving the status quo to prevent further developments or changes to the land pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. Accordingly, the court ordered maintenance of the status quo, restraining any development or dealings with the land until the suit is resolved.