1. They are heard on I.A. No. 1679/2017, an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC, whereby the appellant / defendant seeks interim injunction on the contention that he being in possession of the suit property, this possession may not be disturbed, failing which he would suffer from irreparable injury.

2. Prayer is opposed on behalf of respondent.

3. It is urged that specific finding has been recorded by the trial Court as well as by first appellate Court as regard to possession of respondent / plaintiff over the suit property and in case if the application is allowed, the respondent / plaintiff will suffer an irreparable injury which will be irretrievable.

4. Heard the parties at length.

5. The suit at the instance of respondent was for declaration and permanent injunction and for declaration that the will in respect of suit property bearing survey No. 320/2012 ad-measuring 2 hectares be declared as fabricated. The trial Court besides framing the issue qua the declaration and permanent injunction also framed an issue on the defence taken by the present appellant that as regard to possession of the parties over the suit property as issues No.1 and 3 and while dwelling on the said issue, the trial Court written the following findings:-

^^28- tgk¡ rd izfroknh dk ;g dguk fd oknxzLr Hkwfe ij oknh dkfct ugha gS] cfYd og dkfct gS vkSj [kljk [krkSuh esa Hkh oknxzLr Hkwfe mlds uke banzkt gS] ml laca/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknh gfjHkku dk jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa banzkt olh;r ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk izn'kZ MhŒ 3 ds nLrkost ls nf'kZr gS vkSj rc tcfd olh;r gh izekf.kr ugha gqbZ gS rc mDr vk/kkj ij fdlh izdkj dk LoRo o vkfèkiR; Hkh izfroknh dks izkIr ugha gksxk vkSj oSls Hkh /kkjk 117 eŒizŒ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk ds vuqlkj Hkw&vfHkys[kksa esa dh xbZ izfof"V;ksa ds ckjs esa rc rd lgh gksus dh mi/kkj.kk dh tkrh gS] tc rd fd rRizfrdwy lkfcr u dj fn;k tk,A ;gk¡ ftl olh;r ds vk/kkj ij ukekarj.k gksuk izfroknh }kjk crk;k x;k gS] og olh;r gh izekf.kr ugha gqbZ gS] rc ,slh fLFkfr esa dksbZ LoRo vkf/kiR; izfroknh dks izkIr ugha gksaxs vkSj oknh }kjk izLrqr lk{kh okŒlkŒ 2 cq)flag okŒlkŒ 5 ukjk;.kflag us oknxzLr Hkwfe ij oknh dk dCtk gksuk crk;k gS vkSj okŒlkŒ 5 ukjk;.k dh lk{; izfrijh{k.k esa dCts ds fcUnq ij v[k.Muh; jgh gSA ftlls oknxzLr Hkwfe ij oknh dk vkf/kiR; gksuk izekf.kr gksrk gS] rc oknh dks dCts dh lgk;rk ekaxuk Hkh vko';d ugha Fkk] vr% okn iz'u Øekad 1 o 3 dks izekf.kr ds :i esa fujkd`r fd;k x;k gSA^^

6. Even the appellate court in paragraph 28 has written the findings of respondent/plaintiff being in possession of the property, the appellate Court observed:-

^^28- tgk¡ rd fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa izfroknh gfjHkku ds ukekarj.k dk iz'u gS] izfroknh ds vuqlkj olh;r ds vk/kkj ij mDr ukekarj.k fd;k x;k gS fdUrq blds iwoZ dh xbZ foospuk ls ;g Li"V gS fd izfroknh ds i{k esa dh xbZ dfFkr olh;r izekf.kr gksuk ugha ikbZ xbZ gS ,slh fLFkfr es LoRo dk vk/kkj izekf.kr ugha gksus ls ek= jktLo vfHkys[k dh izfof"V;kasa ds vk/kkj ij gh fookfnr Hkwfe ij izfroknh dk LoRo o vkfèkiR; izekf.kr gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA blds vfrfjDr oknh lk{kh ØŒ 3 fnus'k JhokLro] tks rglhy bZlkx<+ esa ,lŒMhŒvksŒ ds jhMj ds :i esa inLFk gS] ds }kjk [kljk o ukekarj.k iath izn'kZ ihŒ 5 ds laca/k esa Li"V :i ls crk;k x;k gS fd mlesa fy[kkoV dh L;kgh esa varj gS] vksOgj jkbfVax gS] ftl ij dksbZ gLrk{kj ugha gS rFkk ukekarj.k vkns'k ds izdj.k Øekad ,oa vkns'k dk mYys[k ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa Hkh ukekarj.k dh dk;Zokgh lafnX/k gks tkrh gS rFkk ek= ukekarj.k ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr Hkwfe ij izfroknhx.k dks dksbZ LoRo izkIr ugha gksrk gSA^^

7. Trite it is that while exercising the discretion for grant of interim injunction during pending of a suit, following three tests are applied viz. (i) whether plaintiff has a prima facie case (ii) whether balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if temporary injunction is declined. These parameters are to achieve the