Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Dhruva Narayana, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana, for the appellant and Sri Siddharth for the respondents.

2. This is plaintiff’s first appeal from order dated 18.2.2012 passed by Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Farrukhabad in O.S. No. 4 of 2012, by which the application for interim injunction, filed by the plaintiff, has been rejected.

3. The appellant filed O.S. No. 4 of 2012 for redemption of the mortgage dated 2.12.2002 and for a direction to respondent-2 to re-convey the property transferred under the deed to the plaintiff, after taking the mortgage money alongwith 12% interest. It has also been prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession, alienating, selling or transferring the property in dispute in any manner.

4. It has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had established a factory for manufacturing of cement pipes in the name of Trimurti Pipes Ltd. at Bajpur, district Nainital in the year 1989. For that purpose, he took loan of Rs. 27,54,000/- from U.P. Financial Corporation (UPFC) in the year 1989. For the purpose of running capital, he also took loan of Rs. 20 lakhs from State Bank of India (SBI) in the year 1990. A communal violence had taken in Bajpur in the year 1992, as such his factory was closed and he had suffered a huge loss. Accordingly, he could not repay the loan of UPFC and SBI. The UPFC therefore took possession over the factory unit as well as machinery, etc. of the plaintiff and auctioned/sold them. The sale proceeds were not sufficient to satisfy the loan of the UPFC, as such, it has started recovery proceedings against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43148 of 2002, against the recovery proceedings in which, a conditional interim order dated 8.10.2002 was passed directing the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 4,50,000/- with the UPFC. The plaintiff had arranged Rs. 2 lakhs, but he could not arrange the remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- at that time. The plaintiff was in urgent need of the aforesaid money in order to comply in the interim order. He had very good terms with defendant-1, as such, he requested him to advance Rs. 2,50,000/- for complying with the aforesaid interim order. Defendant-1 agreed to advance Rs. 2,50,000/- to the plaintiff, but he in order to secure his loan, asked the plaintiff to execute a sale-deed of the property in dispute. Accordingly, the plaintiff executed the deed dated 2.12.2002 in favour of defendant-2 who is the son of defendant-1. Although, the deed was executed showing it as a sale-deed, but it was an anomalous mortgage. The property in dispute was already mortgaged with the SBI, as such, it’s sale was not possible. In the meantime, the SBI also started recovery proceedings against the plaintiff. As such, in June 2002, the plaintiff requested defendant-1 to get the mortgage redeemed so that he could arrange money by selling his land to satisfy the loan of SBI. Defendant-2 without any information to the plaintiff, got his name mutated over the land in dispute on 16.8.2010. Inspite of repeated requests, the defendants did not agree for redemption of the mortgage. On these allegations, the suit has been filed.

5. In this suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the land in dispute and alienating, selling or transferring it in any manner, during the pendency of the suit.

6. The trial Court issued notice to the defendants on the application for interim injunction. The defendants put appearance and filed their objections and counter-affidavits to the application for interim injunction, in which they have stated that the deed dated 2.12.2002 is a sale-deed and not an anomalous mortgage. The defendant has voluntarily executed the deed without any undue influence or coercion, transferring his all rights in the property in dispute. Possessio