JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under Order XLIII rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-appellant Mahant Kashi Nath Sharma against the judgment and order of the court below rejecting his application filed under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code. 2. Through the application the plaintiff-appellant prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from executing the decree obtained in Suit No. 72 of 1953. 3. There have been many battles in between the parties, which are not necessary to be narrated, in justification of the judgment refusing to interfering in this appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant rejecting his application filed under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2. 4. Mahant Kashi Nath Sharma plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for injunction and declaration on the basis of being a rightful owner having been adopted by Bala Bux. The adoption was believed by the trial court but was disbelieved ultimately by the High Court on the ground that the ceremony had not been established. After having undaunted by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit in which the application for injunction was that he had perfected title by adverse possession and as such was' entitled to get an injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from executing the decree obtained by them in the year 1959. This plea of entitlement of injunction advanced by the appellant was negatived by the trial court on the ground that neither he had any prima facie case nor balance of convenience or irreparable injury in his favour. 5. I am in absolute agreement with the view taken by the court below. It is true that a person who acquires right by adverse possession also has to be safeguarded, but where, as here, the story of the case indicates that this is only an after thought of the appellant by which he has attempted to usurp the property. This plea ought to have been taken in the earlier suits. Having failed in the earlier suit filed for title, he has brought the present suit for injunction and declaration on the basis of adverse possession. 6. Counsel for the appellant admitted that the plea of adverse possession is being advanced and if accepted would only entitle him to use the property as a trustee and not in his personal right. Having failed in the earlier suit filed for title, he has brought the present suit for injunction and declaration on the basis of adverse possession. 6. Counsel for the appellant admitted that the plea of adverse possession is being advanced and if accepted would only entitle him to use the property as a trustee and not in his personal right. That is also a ground which has to be taken into account as to the utility or usefulness of the plea advanced by the plaintiff-appellant. Moreover, granting of injunction is an equitable relief and where the court finds that equities are not in favour of the person praying for an injunction, it can refuse to accede to the same. The appellant's conduct since 1960 has been such which does not justify the injunction to be given to him. He fought, lost; and then fought and then again lost. The points of balance of convenience and irreparable injury have to be decided against the plaintiff-appellant and a decree, which has become final in favour of the respondents cannot be stopped from being executed on the unjustified ground of title based on adverse possession advanced by the plaintiff-appellant. 7. Moreover, granting of injunction is discretionary relief and the court of appeal has limited power to interfere with the same when it finds that the exercise of discretion was arbitary or unjustified. In the instance case, the court below rejected the injunction application on right ground and that the discretion was justly and correctly exercised.The appeal is dismissed with costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******