JUDGMENT Huluvadi G. Ramesh and Shamsher Bahadur Singh, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This First Appeal From Order is directed against the order dated 1.8.2015 passed by the IX Addl. District Judge, Varanasi in Suit No.964 of 2014 by which the application (paper no.6C) filed by the plaintiff/appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for injunction has been rejected. 3. Respondent nos.1 to 3 have entered into registered agreement for sale in respect of 0.418 hectare of land situated in Mauza Kadipur Pargana Shivpur District Varanasi for a consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-. The appellant or his nominee was confirming party. In pursuance of agreement for sale deed dated 15.9.2012, 22 sale deeds were executed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 alongwith the appellant and the sale consideration was taken by them. Defedandant nos.1 to 3 and 5 executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.4 without making appellant as confirming party. The appellant gave notice to defendant to get cancellation of sale deed dated 29.1.2014. The appellant filed suit for cancellation of registered sale deed and also filed application 6C under Order 39 Rule 2. The lower court rejected the application 6C filed by the appellant. It is against this order, the plaintiff/appellant has filed the instant appeal seeking cancellation of the sale deed for permanent injunction. 4. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that according to the agreement for registered sale deed dated 15.9.2012 the defendant nos. 1 to 3 could not execute sale deed without impleading the appellant or his nominee as party to the sale deed to be executed by them, but in the sale deed dated 29.1.2014 the appellant has not been impleaded as party, the sale deed dated 29.1.2014 is void ab initio and is liable to be cancelled. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also taking into consideration the factual position as to how the suit has to be maintainable under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC, reliance has been placed in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 , where the Apex Court has held that the suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration. But a finding on title cannot be considered in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on the question of title in a suit for injunction. 6. In the instant case, the plaintiff is one of interested party in property in suit and the sale deed could not be executed without impleading the appellant or his nominee as a party to the sale deed to be executed by them. Therefore, in view of the above, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order passed by the lower court. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is finally disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.