The lower appellate court cannot interfere with the trial court's order granting an ad interim injunction unless it finds that the trial court has acted arbitrarily or perversely, capriciously, or in disregard of sound legal principles or without considering all relevant records.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. By this order Civil Revision Nos. 4296 and 4297 of 1995 are decided as common facts are involved in both the cases.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Bhupinder Singh filed Civil Suit No. 177 of 1994 against Rana Kamarpal Singh for permanent injunction praying that the defendant be restrained from interfering into his lawful and peaceful possession of the disputed land measuring 4 Kanals 17 Marias (referred to as suit land) as described in the plaint itself. He alleged that he through his maternal uncle and Manager Rajpal purchased the suit land from Jang Bahadur Singh and Achhar Singh for Rs. 36,500/- vide registered sale deed dated April 5, 1994. Possession of the suit land was delivered to him on that very day. Mutation is also sanctioned in his favour. His vendors were in exclusive possession of the suit land at the spot as co-owners/co-sharers irrespective of the wrong revenue entries contrary to it. The defendant started threatening to forcibly dispossess him. Hence he filed this suit and also filed petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for granting ad interim injunction to that effect.

3. In that suit the defendant filed his written statement and raised certain preliminary objections. He averred that even if the said sale deed is proved it is executed as a result of collusion between the plaintiff or Rajpal and Jang Bahadur Singh and Achhar Singh and it does not affect his rights in the suit land. Rajpal has no authority to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff. Even the mutation does not affect his rights. According to him, Jang Bahadur Singh, Achhar Singh and their brother Malkhan Singh entered into an agreement of sale on June 2, 1992, in his favour, in respect of land measuring 7 Kanals 6 Marias out of 19 Kanals 7 Marias for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. He paid Rs. 40,000/- as earnest money and possession of the suit land was delivered to him on that very day. The remaining sale price was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed. Since the date of this agreement, he is in peaceful possession of the suit land. The plaintiff alleges that he purchased the suit land on April 5, 1994 and possession of the suit land delivered to him, but his vendors were not in possession of the suit land on April 5, 1994, as this land was in his possession from June 2, 1992. Hence the prayer was denied.

4. The trial Court considered the allegations as well as the documents filed by the parties and came to the conclusion that not only in the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff there is a recital that possession of the suit land is delivered to the purchaser but also mutation was effected in his favour and in the copy of Jamabandi in remark column there is an entry in respect of this sale in favour of plaintiff Bhupinder Singh. It also observed that simply agreement of sale of immoveable property does not by itself create any interest in or charge on any property and the defendants right, if at all he has any in the suit land shall arise after decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated June 2, 1992, is passed in his favour and it is executed. The trial Court also observed that the defendant could not show that plaintiff Bhupinder Singh had notice of this alleged agreement of sale at the time when the sale deed was executed in his favour. Jang Bahadur Singh and Achhar Singh in their affidavits have supported the plaintiffs claim. Thus, the order of ad interim injunction dated May 17, 1994 was confirmed by Order dated August 24, 1994.

5. Defendant - Rana Kamarpal Singh preferred an appeal against that order, which was decided on September 11, 1995. The lower appellate Court held that the agreement of sale was executed by plaintiffs vendors along with their brother Malkhan Singh in favour of the defendant on June 2, 1992, when he paid Rs. 40,000/as earnest money and on that very day they delivered possessi