A party seeking a temporary injunction must show a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and that irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction is not granted.

R.S. Chauhan, J.

The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anooopgarh Camp, Gharsana District, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellants' application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit for declaration of power of attorney and sale deed as null and void. Along with plaint, they also filed an application for temporary injunction. They claimed that agricultural land in Chak No.16A Tehsil Anoopgarh in Square No.299/449, 301/449 and 300/49 measuring 24 bighas 6 biswas was allotted in 1974 in favour of their father, Shri Budh Ram. Ever since the allotment, their father and after him, the appellants have the Floating Frame possession of the said land. In 1999, the respondent, Dr. Surendra Yadav and Dr. Ramesh Yadav asked the appellants to vacate the land as they claimed that the land was allotted to them. According to the appellants, the respondent and other persons joined hands and prepared a forged power of attorney of their father in 1987, and got it registered. But the fact remains that their father had died in 1986 itself. It was further averred that on the basis of the said power of attorney, the respondent, Surendra Yadav, executed a sale deed on 27.04.1987 in favour of one Pema Ram. Thereafter, Pema Ram sold the land to one Harnek Singh. It was further averred that when the appellants came to know about the forged power of attorney, they filed a FIR. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet.

3. The defendant-respondent filed a reply to the application. They admitted that the land in question was allotted to Budh Ram. However, they claimed that Budh Ram died in 1987 and not in 1986. They submitted a death certificate dated 11.04.1988. According to them, prior to his death, Budh Ram had issued a power of attorney in favour of Surendra Yadav. It was further averred that the Pema Ram sold the said land to the defendants on 07.05.1996 and 17.06.1999 through a registered sale deed; they got the possession of the land in question. They claimed that the plaintiff have prepared a forged death certificate.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code by order dated 19.07.2012. Hence, this appeal before this court.

5. Mr. R.S. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has considered the death certificate dated 11.04.1988 submitted by the police while submitting the negative final report in the criminal case instituted by the appellants against the respondent. However, according to the appellants, the appellants' father expired on 06.12.1986. This fact is borne out by the death certificate dated 28.03.2012. However, the learned Judge has failed to consider the death certificate dated 28.03.2012. The learned Judge has wrongly concluded that the appellant's father expired on 05.12.1987. Moreover, the anxiety of the appellants is that the respondent is likely to further alienate property thereby causing more legal complications.

6. On the other hand, Mr. N.L. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent, has strenuously contended that after a thorough investigation, the police had located the death certificate dated 11.04.1988 which clearly shows the date of death of appellants' father as 05.12.1987. Secondly, the death certificate submitted by the appellant is a subsequent death certificate which is dated 28.03.2012. According to him, the said certificate is a fabricated one. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in accepting prima facie the authenticity of the death certificate dated 11.04.1988. Thirdly, according to the appellants, they were dispossessed from the land in 1989. Therefore, they were not in possession of the land in dispute. Mos