1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.223/2008 Om Prakash & Ors. v. Amantika & Anr. Date of Judgment :: 15th February, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the appellants. Mr. Narendra Singh for Mr. Sajjan Singh, for the respondents. .... In a suit for declaration, filed by the appellant plaintiffs against the respondent defendants, an application seeking temporary injunction was also filed with the averments that Late Shri Nandram never executed any will in favour of the defendants, therefore, the will in question is null and void and on basis of a null and void will the defendants cannot be permitted to evict the appellants from the possession over the land in dispute and further cannot sale or transfer otherwise the land in question. Accordingly, a temporary injunction was sought seeking restrainment for defendants and their family members from interfering in peaceful possession of the appellants and also from selling or transferring the land and for raising construction over it. In reply to the application, the respondent defendants, while denying the allegations relating to the will executed by Shri Nandram, stated that out of 2 12.19 bighas land in dispute, 8.13 bighas of land has already been converted into residential land and 4 bighas land has already been sold by way of registered sale deed. It was also stated that possession over the entire land is with the successor purchasers. Learned trial court, after considering the entire material available on record, found no prima facie case in favour of the appellants and, thus, rejected the application. While challenging the order aforesaid dated 11.5.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nohar, this appeal is preferred with the contention that the plaintiff appellants are sons and grand-sons of the original owner Late Shri Nandram, whereas the defendants are the grand-daughters of Shanta who was daughter of Hardayal, a son of Nandram. Nandram never executed will in favour of the defendants and, therefore, the trial court should have granted the temporary injunction as claimed. I have considered the order impugned. Learned trial court, after considering whatever material available on record, prima facie found that on 19.8.1994 Late Shri Nandram executed a will in favour of the defendants and, therefore, no prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiffs. 3 Learned trial court also found that the land in dispute has already been sold by various registered sale deeds, therefore, the balance of convenience is not in favour of granting temporary injunction as prayed. Similarly, the trial court also found that the applicants are neither owners nor they are having any possession over the land, thus, no irreparable injury shall cause to them in event of non-grant of the temporary injunction. From a bare reading of the order impugned it is apparent that the trial court exercised jurisdiction vested with it judiciously, by taking into consideration entire material available on record and also the facts relevant. There is no perversity, arbitrariness, capriciousness or illegality on face that may warrant interference of this Court with the order impugned. It is pertinent to note that the land in dispute is not in possession of the appellants and as per the defendant respondents they have already sold it to other persons and those persons are not party to the proceedings. In view of whatever discussed above, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same, therefore, is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.