JUDGMENT : J.K. Ranka, J. Instant appeal is directed against order dated 14/05/2015 passed by the trial court whereby the application for temporary injunction No.13/2015 has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts, which can be noticed on perusal of the material available on record are that the appellants herein moved an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, inter alia, mentioning therein that the appellants as well as respondents No.1 to 6 are members of Hindu Undivided Family and one Jadu @ Sadhu, who was great grand father of the appellants, died leaving behind him three sons namely; one Godaram, who died unmarried; the second is Ram Nath and the third one Surjaram who was alive at the time when the application was moved. Shri Surja Ram is said to be grand father of the present appellants. It is further stated that since Ram Nath was not having any child, as such, father of the appellants namely; Dev Karan, was adopted by Ram nath by consent of his wife namely; Smt. Bhanwari Devi in accordance with Hindu customs & rites and since then Dev Karan started living with Ram Nath and his wife as their adopted son but in all the records Devi Karan continued to be named to be son of Surja Ram and no document was ever prepared to the effect that Dev Karan was living with Ram Nath as everyone knew this fact. It is further claimed that on the death of Ram Nath, only Dev Karan performed all the last rites and rituals of Ram Nath and even the turban ceremony was also performed in favour of Dev Karan, as such, Dev Karan was sole owner of all the properties owned and inherited by Ram Nath. It was further claimed that after demise of Dev Karan, each of the appellants had 1/16th share in the ancestral property as described in the plaint. 3. From the rival side, it was claimed that Dev Karan was never taken in adoption by Ram Nath as Dev Karan was the only son of Surja Ram and therefore, question of Dev Karan being taken in adoption by Ram Nath did not arise. It was further claimed on behalf of the respondents that Smt. Champa Devi was wrongly shown as widow of Dev Karan. It was further claimed on behalf of the respondents that Smt. Champa Devi was wrongly shown as widow of Dev Karan. Smt. Champa Devi, daughter of Shri Ram was married as per Hindu rights and customs to Prithvi Singh son of Kurda Ram, by caste Gurjar, resident of Karoli in 1971. It was further claimed on behalf of the respondents that Smt. Champa Devi initiated proceedings in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against Prithvi Singh claiming to be wife of Prithvi Singh. It was further claimed that Smt. Santra Devi was the wife of Dev Karan and married to him as per Hindu rights and customs and she was still alive and therefore, there was no question of Smt. Champa Devi being wife of Dev Karan. 4. The trial court disbelieved the version of the appellants and after holding elaborate discussion in the impugned order did not find any of the ingredients of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the appellants and accordingly rejected the temporary injunction application moved by the appellants/plaintiffs. 5. Counsel for the appellants contended by showing certificate of various people of village who had certified the pedigree of Dev Karan and had certified that Ram Nath S/o Jadu @ Sadhu and Smt. Bhanwari Devi, with the consent of his younger brother Surja Ram in the presence of senior people of Gram Panchayat, took Dev Karan in adoption who after his adoption started living with Ram Nath as his adopted son. It was further claimed that Smt. Chhoti Devi, the then Sarpanch, Nangal Panditpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur had certified that at the time when she was Sarpanch, ration card bearing No.135 dated 01/03/2006, was prepared after complete verification and satisfaction and at that time Godha Ram was head of the family who died issue-less and after proper verification, it was noticed that Ram Nath was married to Bhanwari Devi and Dev Karan was the adopted son of Ram Nath and ration card was issued under her signatures and seal. The rational card has also been placed on record in the paper book (page 35). The rational card has also been placed on record in the paper book (page 35). It is further claimed that Saroj Kumari (appellant No.1), in the certificate of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan (page 36) has been shown as daughter of Dev Karan and Smt. Champa Devi and so also Ms Lali Devi has been shown as daughter of Dev Karan (P.37) and similarly Ms. Hansa has also been shown as daughter of Dev Karan (page 39) and Ms Hero (appellant NO.4) has also been shown as daughter of Dev Karan (Page 40). Counsel also brought to notice that 'Aadhar Card' (Identification Card) issued by the Government of India also depicts Ms. Saroj Kumari (appellant NO.1) as daughter of Dev Karan so also Ms. Hansa Kumari and Ms. Lali Devi are being depicted as daughters of Dev Karan. It was further claimed that the ration card issued by the authorised officer shows Smt. Champa Devi as head of the family and wife of Dev Karan and also 'Aadhar Card' in the name of Smt. Champa Devi depicts her to be wife of Dev Karan. Counsel for the appellants, after placing reliance on the above documents, contended that the trial court was unjustified in passing the impugned order as all these documents, prima-facie, proved that Dev Karan was adopted son of Ram Nath and when all the villagers had expressed by a certificate that Dev Karan was taken in adoption and therefore, such vital evidence ought not to have been disbelieved. He further contended that all the ingredients of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss were in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs and if the temporary injunction is not allowed, serious prejudice would be caused to the appellants. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned order so also the documents relied upon. 7. In my view, the trial court has elaborately discussed each and every document relied upon by counsel for the appellants and I am not persuaded to take a different view than the trial court. The trial court has come to a right conclusion that the appellants failed to prove prima-facie that Dev Karan was taken in adoption by Ram Nath. In my view, the trial court has elaborately discussed each and every document relied upon by counsel for the appellants and I am not persuaded to take a different view than the trial court. The trial court has come to a right conclusion that the appellants failed to prove prima-facie that Dev Karan was taken in adoption by Ram Nath. The trial court also rightly concluded that the appellants, prima-facie, were not the daughters of Dev Karan, as their mother Smt. Champa Devi was wife of Prithvi Singh and not of Dev Karan as depicted from the judgment passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. Wherein Smt. Champa Devi claimed herself to be wife of Prithvi Singh and thus the appellants cannot be said to be having any rights in the property of Dev Karan. The affidavit of Rohan Sharma, does not prima-facie prove the case that Dev Karan was adopted son of Ram Nath and even otherwise, such an affidavit is not at all reliable and has been rightly discarded by the trial court because there is no document executed in respect of the alleged fact that Dev Karan was taken in adoption by Ram Nath and no evidence has been placed on record by the appellants wherein Dev Karan has been shown as adopted son of Ram Nath. Even in the ration card, though name of Ram Nath and Dev Karan has been mentioned but Dev Karan was not stated to be the adopted son of Ram Nath and even the appellants admitted that Dev Karan was the only son of Surja Ram and Surja Ram had no son except Dev Karan. Merely because the certificate of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan shows the name of father as Dev Karan, it does not tilt the balance in favour of the appellants. Even the judgment of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul dated 02/03/1989 clearly shows that Smt. Champa Devi was wife of Prithvi Singh and not wife of Dev Karan and name of his wife was Santara Devi who was still alive. No material/evidence/document has been placed by the appellants that Dev Karan during the life time divorced Smt. Santara Devi. In-fact, marriage of Smt. Santara Devi with Dev Karan subsisted and both lived as husband and wife and therefore, the question of Smt. Champa Devi being wife of Dev Karan does not arise. No material/evidence/document has been placed by the appellants that Dev Karan during the life time divorced Smt. Santara Devi. In-fact, marriage of Smt. Santara Devi with Dev Karan subsisted and both lived as husband and wife and therefore, the question of Smt. Champa Devi being wife of Dev Karan does not arise. It has also been rightly observed by the trial court that even if there is live-in-relationship between Smt. Champa Devi and Dev Karan, that also does not confer any right to the appellants in the ancestral property of Dev Karan or Ram Nath or Surja Ram. 8. Thus, after considering the arguments of counsel appearing for the appellants and on perusal of the entire material placed on record including the impugned order of learned trial court as also the documents referred above, I find myself in complete agreement with the view as has been expressed by the learned trial court under order impugned and find no perversity, arbitrariness or capriciousness in the same and as such, the present appeal is without merits and deserves to be dismissed. Needless to mention that the observations made herein are limited to the extent of disposal of the appeal. 9. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.