JUDGMENT Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. The brief facts of the case culled out from the record are that the suit property, measuring 560 sq. yards was purchased by Smt. Vrindavani Devi through a registered sale deed on 5.11.1962. She is said to have executed a registered gift deed (Hiba) on 16.5.1964 in favour of Aligarh Janhit Bhawan Nirman Sehkari Samiti Ltd. Aligarh, (hereinafter referred to as the Society) to which Sri R.K. Sharma, her son is said to be an attesting witness. The plaintiff/appellant claims herself to be a member of the aforesaid Society. She is said to have been allotted the suit land on 5.2.1978 for Rs. 39,220.00. It is alleged that after the death of Smt. Vrindavani Devi her two sons and daughters did not get any right in the suit land, however, the defendant/respondent claimed to have purchased the suit land on 9.5.2012 from the two sons and daughter of late Smt. Vrindavani Devi and on the basis thereof it is stated that defendant/respondent started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/appellant. This compelled the plaintiff/appellant to institute suit No. 1996 of 2012 in October, 2012, in which the trial court ex parte restrained the defendant/respondent from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/appellant, except in accordance with law. After hearing parties counsel application for interim injunction of the plaintiff/appellant was rejected on merits vide order dated 1.12.2012 holding that the sale deed in favour of defendant/respondent being a registered document can not be disbelieved at this stage. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that on the face of it, the sale deed in favour of defendant/respondent is void document as Smt. Vrindavani Devi had already gifted the said land to the predecessor-in- interest of plaintiff/appellant vide registered gift deed dated 16.5.1964 and, therefore, she had no right interest or title thereon. The appellant has challenged this order dated 1.12.2012 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 2, Aligarh in O.S. No. 1996 of 2012, Sutikshan Kumar Singh v. Pushpa Kumar Garg and others. The appellant has challenged this order dated 1.12.2012 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 2, Aligarh in O.S. No. 1996 of 2012, Sutikshan Kumar Singh v. Pushpa Kumar Garg and others. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for the relief of quashing the impugned order and judgment aforesaid in the aforesaid suit and allow application No. 7 Ga-2 in favour of the appellant. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant claims title through the said Society, who had been allotted the suit property by a registered Hibanama dated 16.5.1964 by erstwhile owner. The Society has not challenged the allotment of the suit property to the plaintiff/appellant as such mere change of allotment of the suit property by the defendants/respondents is not sufficient to reject their application for temporary injunction. It is stated that the defendant/respondent even if no semblance of title as they claimed to have purchased the suit property in two parts vide sale deed dated 10.5.2012 from the sons and daughters of Smt. Vrindavani Devi, who had earlier executed a Hilbanama in favour of the Society. It is argued that the court below cannot adopt two yardsticks in this case, while holding that Hilbanama through a registered document can not be relied upon till it is proved and on the other the sale deed dated 10.5.2012 obtained by the defendant/respondent being a registered document can not be disbelieved, particularly when one of her sons namely Raj Kumar Sharma was himself an attesting witness to Hibanama dated 16.5.1964. It is stated that the trial court has misread the sale deed in holding that the vendor thereof is Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma and not Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, therefore, the trial court has approached the controversy in issue with a biased mind and in any case the receipts of electricity bills filed by the defendant/respondent does not prove their possession over the suit property and the finding of the trial court regarding their possession is incorrect as the plaintiff/appellant has also filed the photographs showing his name plate on the entrance/gate, which has wrongly been brushed aside by the court below. The plaintiff/appellant had also not got the site inspected by the Amin Commissioner, therefore, the trial court had taken manifestly erroneous view by drawing adverse inference against the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff/appellant had also not got the site inspected by the Amin Commissioner, therefore, the trial court had taken manifestly erroneous view by drawing adverse inference against the plaintiff/appellant. It is lastly submitted that O.S. No. 264 of 2012 was preferred against different persons on different cause of action and there was no concealment of any material facts. The plaintiff/appellant had filed application for not pressing the amendment application, therefore, merely because no orders were passed on the amendment application by the trial court to bring the respondents/opposite parties on record till date cannot have any effect as such the findings of the trial court that the plaintiff/appellants have not approached the court below with clean hands is not sustainable in law. It is stated that the defendants/respondents are the builders and have intention to raise construction over the suit property, which would change the nature and character of the suit property, as such the trial court has erred in holding that the plaintiff/appellant has no prima facie case, balance of convenience or are likely to suffer any irreparable loss and injury. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his case has relied upon the decision rendered in 2005 SCFDRC-5 : ( AIR 2005 SC 104 ), Meharwal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot v. Baldev Das. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the court below has on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record and documents proved that there is no such Society registered as Janhit Bhawan Nirman Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Aligarh. It has neither filed any document regarding possession over the suit property, nor is in its possession. Merely filing photograph showing name plate of plaintiff on the gate would not establish his possession over the land in dispute as the photograph carrying the name plate is deceitful. 7. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the respondent that no sale deed of the suit property was executed by the aforesaid Society in favour of appellant, therefore, he has no right or title through the Society. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we find that there is no document on record, which may establish the possession of the Society over the suit property. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we find that there is no document on record, which may establish the possession of the Society over the suit property. As regards Sri R.K. Sharma being attesting witness is concerned, the court below has recorded a finding of fact that it was in fact Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma who is the attesting witness and not the son of Smt. Vrindavani Devi i.e. Sri Raj Kumar Sharma. 9. On perusal of record, we also find that there is no document executed by Smt. Vrindavani Devi, handing over the possession of the suit property to the aforesaid Society, whereas the sons and daughters of Smt. Vrindavani Devi inherited title by devolution of the land in dispute upon them. Once it has been found by the court below that the Society did not have any title or possession, it had no right to allot the piece of land to the appellants, who is claiming the possession and title on the basis of his being member of the Society. In this regard the court below has recorded its findings which are as under: (Vernacular matter omitted ...Ed) 10. Therefore, the trial court rightly rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff/appellant holding that the sale deed in favour of defendant/respondent not being a registered document cannot be disbelieved at this stage. It may be noted that the defendant/respondents claimed to have purchased the said land from the two sons and daughters of Late Smt. Vrindavani Devi. Whether the document is void or voidable can not be decided by the trial court until and unless the evidence is led and it is proved that the seller had no tittle to pass it on to the buyers Society. Therefore, the appellant does not have any prima facie case, or balance of convenience in his favour and will also not suffer any irreparable loss or injury, in case the injunction is not granted in his favour at this stage. The plaintiff/appellant earlier also moved the court below by instituting original suit No. 264 of 2012, in which injunction had been declined. In that suit neither the sons and daughters of Late Smt. Vrindavani Devi, now the defendant/respondents had been arrayed as parties. The plaintiff/appellant earlier also moved the court below by instituting original suit No. 264 of 2012, in which injunction had been declined. In that suit neither the sons and daughters of Late Smt. Vrindavani Devi, now the defendant/respondents had been arrayed as parties. Admittedly, an application for amendment was filed in that case to implead them in the suit, but the application for amendment was not pressed. Instead of pursuing their amendment application in the aforesaid suit the appellants chose to withdraw the same and filed fresh O.S. 1996 of 2012, without mentioning the fact aforesaid, as well as for grant of leave and liberty for filing fresh suit being O.S. No. 264 of 2012. The appellant has, therefore, not come with clean hands before the court below. The question of Order 23, Rule 1, C.P.C. is yet to be decided by the court below, therefore, we do not think it proper to express any opinion on this question at this stage. 11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal sans merit and is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.