JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals under 0.43 R.1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 19.121990 of the District Judge Jaipur City in application nos.51 of 1990 and 61 of 1990 under 0.39 R.1 Sr 2 CPC raise common questions of law and facts and, therefore, are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. Sardar Rawail Singh filed a suit against his son Ajeet Singh asserting that plot no.308 at Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur was purchased by him from Punjabi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. On this plot, he built his house from the money which he received as compensation. He asserted that another plot no.5/496 in Rajapark, Jaipur was got allotted by him to his son Ajeet Singh and that the house constructed thereon was given to Ajeet Singh . On 15.6.1989, he executed a registered will bequeathing the house in dispute to his three daughters and had further made arrangement of giving a portion thereof to Satpal Singh who is the son of fourth widowed daughter. Execution of the will enraged Ajeet Singh and he started creating complications as a result whereof the plaintiff asked Ajeet Singh not to use the passage. Which was a cause of trouble. As the dispute could not be settled amicably, the plaintiff had to bring the suit for injunction restraining the defendant-Ajeet Singh from interfering with his possession. 3. The suit was contested by Ajeet Singh asserting that he was the owner of the house and the plaintiff Sardar Rawail Singh, his father had no right over the property. The defendant claimed that from his own income, he constructed the house and his father had no right to execute any will in regard to the same. 4. In the suit, two application were filed for injunction- one by Sardar Rawail Singh and the other by Ajeet Singh. Sardar Rawail Singh prayed that the defendant Ajeet Singh be restrained from interfering with peaceful possession of the house whereas Ajeet Singh prayed that the plaintiff and his sister's son Satpal Singh be restrained from interfering with his possession. 5. The crucial question in this case was who was the real owner of the house in question; whether it was constructed by the plaintiff Sardar Rawail Singh or the same was constructed by Ajeet Singh from his own money. 6. 5. The crucial question in this case was who was the real owner of the house in question; whether it was constructed by the plaintiff Sardar Rawail Singh or the same was constructed by Ajeet Singh from his own money. 6. Taking the view that question of title could not be decided at this stage as evidence of the parties would be required to be taken, in order to maintain peace in the family, the court below directed that since the defendant Ajeet Singh had an alternative passage for going to the portion, which was in his occupation, he was restrained from using the main passage. On this finding the application moved by Ajeet Singh was rejected. This led to the filing of these two appeals by Ajeet Singh. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that a temporary injunction can,not be issued in a case where the very right of the defendant sought to be protected, is in dispute. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel contended that the house was constructed by the defendant Ajeet Singh and not by the plaintiff Sardar Rawail Singh. The court below without going into this question and examining as to whether Sardar Rawail Singh had any prima facie case in his favour, committed an error in granting injunction to the plaintiff. 8. It is admitted that the relevant papers are in the name of the plaintiff -Sardar Rawail Singh, demonstrating that the house belongs to him. In my opinion, the court below very rightly refused to go into the details of examining the rights of the parties and in recording a finding thereon as examination of evidence at this stage would not have been of much use. It may be correct that an estimate of ultimate success in the entire case is a pre-requisite for grant of temporary injunction, but absolute certainty to the plaintiff's right, title and Merest in the final decision on merits is not required and it is sufficient that the plaintiff makes out a case of probable success on merits. What law requires is that there should be substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on merits. In the instant case, there were strong reasons to hold that the plaintiff would prevail on merits of his claim. 9. What law requires is that there should be substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on merits. In the instant case, there were strong reasons to hold that the plaintiff would prevail on merits of his claim. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant next urged that apart from sentimental ground, there was no damage which Sardar Rawail Singh had suffered on account of use of passage by the appellant and his family members. At the most, mere inconvenience was being suffered by the plaintiff and this was not a sound ground fer allowing injunction. 10. It is true that injunction cannot be granted when the injury is technical, inconsequential, fanciful, imaginary and sentimental. A court, in a proper case to protect a right without any' reference to the question of actual damage, can issue such an order which it considers, would preserve the property and restore peace. In the instant case, the dispute is between the family members and an alternative passage is available to the defendant for going to his portion of the house and, therefore, the court below did not commit any error in granting injunction to the plaintiff. Granting of such injunction would avoid day-to-day problems and will not further spoil the relationship between a father and son. The trial court is fully justified in holding that the use of discretion by granting injunction in the present case was in the best interest of the parties. 11. An injunction is granted out of equity as a matter of grace when necessary to serve the ends of justice. The power to grant or refuse it rests in the sound discretion of the court under the circumstances and the facts of the particular case. In the present case, under the circumstances and the facts, discretion has been exercised in favour of Sardar Rawail Singh. The granting of it, thus, is neither arbitrary nor perverse. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that by permitting the use of passage in the manner that Ajeet Singh was doing, the court below should have refused to grant injunction to the plaintiff as it did not harm the plaintiff. 13. The granting of it, thus, is neither arbitrary nor perverse. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that by permitting the use of passage in the manner that Ajeet Singh was doing, the court below should have refused to grant injunction to the plaintiff as it did not harm the plaintiff. 13. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable to me, inasmuch as, from the record and the judgment of the court below challenged by means of these appeals, it appears that misunderstanding between the parties had gone to such a pitch that required an order of the court directing Ajeet Singh to use the small passage and avoid coming to the main gate. From a practical point of view, Ajeet Singh might have to face some inconvenience but that was preferable that to permitting him and the family members to use main gate. When relationship between the father and son comes down to the level that one would not like to see the face of the other, it is preferable that Ajeet Singh should have been asked not to use the common passage.of the house. Little inconvenience could not be taken into account for rejecting the injunction application. The impugned order may bring peace amongst the members of the family and they might also think about the settlement in between themselves. 14. Consequently, the appeals fail and are dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******