By the Court.—This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and order dated 18-03-2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar allowing the application 6Ga granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in the peaceful possession over the suit property.

2. Facts, in short, necessary for the purpose are as under :

Suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against the defendant-appellant and defendant-respondent No. 2 to restrain them from interfering in any manner over the suit property or to evict therefrom. An application for temporary injunction was also moved. Suit was filed on the allegation that the suit property originally belonged to one Surya Prasad son of Baldev Prasad, who was allotted the same by the Kanpur Development Authority. The said Surya Prasad executed a registered will dated 4.6.1997 bequeathing all his movable and immovable property including the suit property in favour of Smt. Kanti Sachan wife of the defendant-respondent No. 2. After death of Surya Prasad, Smt. Kanti Sachan, on the basis of registered will in her favour, obtained a free hold deed in her favour from Kanpur Development Authority, which was duly registered with the Sub Registrar. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 purchased the suit property by a registered sale-deed dated 04-02-2015. After execution of the sale-deed, possession of the entire suit property was handed over to him and since thereafter, he is owner and possession of the same. It was further pleaded that on 17-02-2014 at about 11 a.m., the defendants alongwith 10 - 12 person tried to take forcible possession over the suit property. A temporary injunction application was moved on the same and similar allegation.

3. The injunction application was contested by the defendant-appellant by filing written statement pleading therein that he is owner and in possession over the suit property and the same was bequeathed in his favour by his maternal grandfather late Surya Prasad and the alleged will in favour of Smt. Kanti Sachan is forged and fictitious document. The defendant-appellant set up an unregistered will dated 28-06-1997 executed by late Surya Prasad in his favour. It was also alleged that Smt. Kanti Sachan had no right to get free hold deed executed in her favour and the sale-deed, if any, has been executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, the same is illegal and ineffective.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendant-appellant had will in his favour executed by his maternal grandfather and voluminous documents in the form of various receipts were filed to establish that it was the defendant-appellant who was in possession over the suit property and running the marriage hall.

5. Trial Court found that three ingredients for grant of temporary injunction namely; prima facie case, balance of conveyance and irreparable loss were in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and accordingly granted temporary injunction. The Court below further held that the plaintiff has a registered sale-deed of the suit property in his favour and he has been able to trace the title of his vendor on the basis of a registered will deed and free hold deed and thus the prima facie case was in his favour. In respect of evidence adduced by the defendant-appellant in the form of various receipts issued to establish that he was running a marriage hall over the suit property, it was disbelieved by the trial Court on the finding that the same appears to have been prepared on one day in the same ink and handwriting.

6. The claim of the defendant-appellant was based on the basis of an unregistered will. Whereas the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has set up the case on the basis of a registered will in favour of his vendor who happened to be the daughter of late Surya Prasad. Further there was a registered f