Judgment J.R. Goyal, J.-This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.01.2003 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Sikar (camp Srimadhopur) in Civil Misc. Case No. 20/2001 (85/98) whereby the application filed by appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 3. Brief facts, according to the plaintiff , are that he was adopted by Lakha as son on 012.1971. Defendants fraudulently executed an adoption deed on 23.01.1996. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the adoption deed dated 23.01.1996 and for declaration and permanent injunction, on the ground that the adoption deed was void in view of Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Alongwith the plaint an application for temporary injunction was also submitted inter alia praying for a declaration that plaintiff is the lawfully adopted son of Lakha. The learned trial Court dismissed the injunction application, against which this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is the adopted son of Lakha and that he was looking after his adoptive father. It was also contended that while Lakha was at Haridwar, plaintiff was described as his son which is also entered in the diary of religious pandas - Ram Pratap and Umakant. It is also contended that appellant had paid the entire debts of Lakha and that he had also paid rent of the agricultural land and had got electrified the agricultural land of Lakha. It is also contended that respondent No. 2 - Salagram, who is nephew of the appellant, in order to grab the property of Lakha, in the garb of providing old age pension to Lakha, took him away and got the adoption deed executed by fraud and misrepresentation. It is also contended that once the appellant has already been adopted in the year 1971 by Lakha, in view of Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, no further adoption can be made. It was also contended that in the grab of the adoption deed dated 23.01.1996, respondents are trying to dispossess the appellant from the property of Lakha. 5. It was also contended that in the grab of the adoption deed dated 23.01.1996, respondents are trying to dispossess the appellant from the property of Lakha. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that Lakha never adopted the appellant as son but only to grab the property of Lakha, appellant falsely claimed to be the adopted son of Lakha. It is also contended that Lakha had adopted respondent - Mahesh and the adoption deed was got duly registered by him on 23.01.1996. It is also contended that mutation has been opened in favour of Mahesh and he is also in actual physical possession of the property of Lakha. Considering all the factual aspect of the case, learned Court below has rightly dismissed the temporary injunction application of the plaintiff . 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. Learned Court below found that no document was produced by the appellant to show that he was the adopted son of Lakha. Even in the jamabandi of village Malikpur for the period Samvat 2047 to 2060, appellant has been shown as the son of Jagannath. On the contrary, registered adoption deed has been produced by respondent - Mahesh which was executed by Lakha in his favour. Thus, considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of respondent - Mahesh, learned Court below rightly dismissed the temporary injunction application. 8. It is settled position of law that ordinarily the appellate Court should not interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial Court unless it is found that the order is arbitrary or perverse or capricious or in disregard to sound legal principles or without considering all the relevant record. I do not find such flaw in the order of the trial Court. 9. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.