Hon’ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 5), Kanpur Nagar in O.S. No. 1056 of 2011 whereby the application of the plaintiff-appellant for ad interim injunction has been rejected.

2. Facts in brief germane to this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of sale-deed dated 20.10.2010 executed by defendants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the defendant-respondent No. 3 in respect of premises No. 7/126, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur as ultra virus, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Relief for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants their workers, agents and assignees from selling, transferring, alienating or disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and from carrying out any constructions/demolition work over the suit property had also been sought. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being the owners agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 4.0 lacs to plaintiff and executed a registered agreement for sale on 16.1.1995 after receiving earnest money of Rs. 50,000/-. The same day the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of Mukesh Kumar to perform all legal necessities/requirements in connection with execution of the sale-deed. Pursuant thereto Mukesh Kumar executed registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff on 8.7.2005 for higher sale consideration of Rs. 10.5 lacs and he received symbolic possession over the suit property and the tenants also adorned him as their owner and landlord. Thereafter the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed suit No. 1871/2005 for cancellation of sale-deed dated 8.7.2005 on the ground that the general power of attorney executed in favour of Mukesh Kumar had already been revoked by them prior to execution of the sale-deed. The plaintiff further alleged that in negotiations it was settled between the parties that in case the plaintiff surrenders his right in respect of suit property he would get Rs. One Crore as compensation and a sum of Rs. 31.0 lacs were actually paid to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 3. However, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently resiled from their oral commitment to pay balance of Rs. 69.0 lacs which was also assured to be paid by defendant No. 3 and instead surreptitiously and fraudulently they executed sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 3 on 20.10.2010. The contention of the plaintiff is that the second sale-deed has no legal sanctity unless and until the sale-deed in his favour was cancelled or set aside by a competent Court. Thereafter the defendants withdrew their suit No. 1871/2005, so the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff is valid and effective till today. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 gave evasive replies and made false pretext to pay balance sum aforesaid to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff knew about the sale-deed, he threatened the defendants to take criminal action against them for cheating him and the oral agreement between the parties also came to an end as the defendants No. 1 and 2 refused to pay the balance amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is still owner of the suit property and sale-deed dated 20.10.2010 does not confer any right or title on defendant No. 3. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff filed application for ad interim injunction supported with affidavit.

3. Defendants-respondents filed separate objections inter alia admitting the execution of agreement for sale in favour of plaintiff dated 16.1.1995 as also appointment of Mukesh Kumar as general power of attorney of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, but further stated that the said power was revoked by them through registered deed dated 28.2.1998 and charged the plaintiff for having committed fraud in collusion with Mukesh Kumar with regard to execution of sale-deed dated 8.7.2005 on the ground that both the