A party seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, which the plaintiff failed to do.

The present petition arises out of the judgment dated 24.3.2021, as passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., whereby the appeal preferred by the present respondents/defendants was allowed and the order dated 14.1.2020, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Mandi, District Mandi, was set aside and consequently, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC preferred for grant of temporary injunction against the respondents was ordered to be dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mandi on 21.11.2019. It was averred in the plaint that the land comprised under Khewat Khatauni No. 264/364, Khasra No. 482, measuring 2-1-18 bighas, situated in Muhal Takoli, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, is recorded under the ownership and possession of the plaintiff, defendants and proforma defendants, which entry regarding defendants/respondents showing them as joint co-owners in possession to the extent of ½ share is wrong, illegal, incorrect and contrary to the factual position. It was further averred that previously suit land was owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh, whereas S/Sh. Thanthi and Mathru were in possession of the same as non-occupancy tenants in equal shares. Later on, proprietary rights of the suit land were conferred upon them and mutation No. 36, dated 14.9.1966 to this effect was attested and they became absolute owners in possession of the suit land. Said Thanthi was issueless and died in the year 1982. After his death, his half share in the suit land was devolved upon Mathru being his sole legal heir (brother) and thus, Mathru became owner in possession of the entire suit land.

3. As per claim set up by the plaintiff/petitioner, Mathru died during the year 2004 and after his death, the suit land was inherited by the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.6 being the sole legal heirs and daughters of Mathru, who are now joint owners in possession of the entire suit land and along with proforma defendants No. 7 and 8. It was further averred that the defendants/respondents are not joint owners in possession of the suit land. In the month of September, 2019 defendants/respondents started unlawful interference with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.6 over the suit land and when confronted, the defendants/respondents disclosed that they are also joint owners in possession of the suit land as per revenue record, therefore, the plaintiff enquired into the matter and after collecting the revenue record came to know for the first time that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, namely, S/Sh. Vir Chand alias Vari Chand and Ram Rattan, in connivance with the then revenue officials/officers got share of Thanthi fraudulently transferred in their name through alleged false and fabricated Rapat Roznamcha No. 391, dated 2.8.1966 and got mutation No. 38, dated 15.9.1966/20.11.1966 entered and attested in their names behind the back and without knowledge of Thanthi. Therefore