JUDGMENT By the Court.—This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and order dated 18-03-2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar allowing the application 6Ga granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in the peaceful possession over the suit property. 2. Facts, in short, necessary for the purpose are as under : Suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against the defendant-appellant and defendant-respondent No. 2 to restrain them from interfering in any manner over the suit property or to evict therefrom. An application for temporary injunction was also moved. Suit was filed on the allegation that the suit property originally belonged to one Surya Prasad son of Baldev Prasad, who was allotted the same by the Kanpur Development Authority. The said Surya Prasad executed a registered will dated 4.6.1997 bequeathing all his movable and immovable property including the suit property in favour of Smt. Kanti Sachan wife of the defendant-respondent No. 2. After death of Surya Prasad, Smt. Kanti Sachan, on the basis of registered will in her favour, obtained a free hold deed in her favour from Kanpur Development Authority, which was duly registered with the Sub Registrar. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 purchased the suit property by a registered sale-deed dated 04-02-2015. After execution of the sale-deed, possession of the entire suit property was handed over to him and since thereafter, he is owner and possession of the same. It was further pleaded that on 17-02-2014 at about 11 a.m., the defendants alongwith 10 - 12 person tried to take forcible possession over the suit property. A temporary injunction application was moved on the same and similar allegation. 3. The injunction application was contested by the defendant-appellant by filing written statement pleading therein that he is owner and in possession over the suit property and the same was bequeathed in his favour by his maternal grandfather late Surya Prasad and the alleged will in favour of Smt. Kanti Sachan is forged and fictitious document. The defendant-appellant set up an unregistered will dated 28-06-1997 executed by late Surya Prasad in his favour. The defendant-appellant set up an unregistered will dated 28-06-1997 executed by late Surya Prasad in his favour. It was also alleged that Smt. Kanti Sachan had no right to get free hold deed executed in her favour and the sale-deed, if any, has been executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, the same is illegal and ineffective. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendant-appellant had will in his favour executed by his maternal grandfather and voluminous documents in the form of various receipts were filed to establish that it was the defendant-appellant who was in possession over the suit property and running the marriage hall. 5. Trial Court found that three ingredients for grant of temporary injunction namely; prima facie case, balance of conveyance and irreparable loss were in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and accordingly granted temporary injunction. The Court below further held that the plaintiff has a registered sale-deed of the suit property in his favour and he has been able to trace the title of his vendor on the basis of a registered will deed and free hold deed and thus the prima facie case was in his favour. In respect of evidence adduced by the defendant-appellant in the form of various receipts issued to establish that he was running a marriage hall over the suit property, it was disbelieved by the trial Court on the finding that the same appears to have been prepared on one day in the same ink and handwriting. 6. The claim of the defendant-appellant was based on the basis of an unregistered will. Whereas the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has set up the case on the basis of a registered will in favour of his vendor who happened to be the daughter of late Surya Prasad. Further there was a registered free hold deed executed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the plaintiff was claiming rights on the basis of a registered sale-deed in his favour executed by a person who had a registered free hold deed in her favour. Thus there was a serious issue required to be tried and there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 7. Thus there was a serious issue required to be tried and there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 7. In so far far as the evidence in the form of receipts filed by the defendant-appellant are concerned, the trial Court found that they were prepared in the same ink and handwriting, hence, disbelieved the same. We do not find any illegality in the said finding. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed special emphasis on this argument that the Court below has failed to record the fact that possession of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff on the suit property has been prima facie established, he submits further that a person who is not in possession cannot seek relief of injunction even then the Court below has granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. 9. It is true that in the impugned order though the learned civil judge while briefly noticing the respective case of both the parties has mentioned that the plaintiff claimed himself to be owner in possession vide sale-deed dated 4.2.2015 executed by Smt. Kanti Sachan D/o late Surya Prasad, however while examining the relevant points i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the learned civil judge has mentioned that from the sale-deed, plaintiff is evidently owner of the suit property and further held that prima facie case in his favour is made out. Omission of word possession has made a ground to attack the legality of the impugned order. 10. Here the relevant question is that what connotation phrase ‘prima facie case’ legally carries. At this junction, it would be gainful to refer the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Bottling Company Ltd. v. Coco Cola Company, (1995) 5 SCC 545 : AIR 1995 SC 2372. The relevant observation is quoted hereunder : “The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the Court. While exercising the discretion the Court applies the following tests- (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. While exercising the discretion the Court applies the following tests- (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainity were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need to the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The Court must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies.” 11. Now we proceed to examine whether in the light of the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant, prima facie case in favour of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is made out or not ? In the impugned order, the learned civil judge has specifically mentioned that both parties have claimed ownership rights in suit property while plaintiff/respondent No. 1 claims on the basis of sale-deed, whereas the appellant claims the ownership and possession on the basis of the will. Thus both parties have asserted their rights in the suit property, since these assertions are supported by documents, there is serious question to be tried during the trial by the learned civil judge. Both the parties have an opportunity to produce documentary as well as oral evidence and after hearing the parties, the Court below will render final judgment thereby adjudicating their rights, if any, in the suit property. It would be in the ends of justice that suit property should be preserved. Both the parties have an opportunity to produce documentary as well as oral evidence and after hearing the parties, the Court below will render final judgment thereby adjudicating their rights, if any, in the suit property. It would be in the ends of justice that suit property should be preserved. On the basis of record, we are satisfied that prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff is made out. In such circumstances, in case status of the suit property is not preserved or parties are allowed to change the same by not granting injunction, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 would suffer irreparable loss and would get nothing by filing the present suit. 12. Thus preservation of the suit property during pendency of the suit would tilt, balance of convenience also in his favour. About irreparable loss suffice is to say, in case, no interim injunction is issued, the of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is likely to suffer irreparable loss, i.e., right of use and occupation of the property in suit as owner. In view of above, till the respective rights of the parties are determined by the Court below, and their alleged violation is subjected to judicial scrutiny, ends of justice will remain secure by the impugned order. 13. In view of above facts and discussions, the trial Court has committed no illegality in allowing the application of temporary injunction and the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 14. The First Appeal From Order stands dismissed summarily. —————