JUDGMENT : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. By order dated 3rd June, 2016, the trial Court declined the application of the plaintiff/appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC; of which the appellant is aggrieved of. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of appeal, asserted that the appellant-plaintiff, instituted suit proceedings for declaration, partition and injunction. 3. It is further contended that the plaintiff/appellant, along with his two brothers, defendant/non-appellant No. 1 and 3, were into joint business in partnership in the name of 'Ms. Virendra Oil Mills Dausa' and 'Ms. Sharma and Company' since 1950. 4. It is pleaded case of the plaintiff/appellant that the income derived out of the joint business was a part of the Hindu Undivided Family and majority of the properties, were purchased in the individual names of the family members out of income of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). 5. It is further urged that a family agreement/settlement dated 14th November, 1986, was executed by all the three brothers i.e. plaintiff/appellant and defendant/non-appellant No. 1 and 3, which in no uncertain terms reflected that various properties were shared individually. Moreover, the family agreements/settlements were acted upon by all the three brothers who are parties to the suit proceedings. 6. According, to learned counsel, the agricultural land bearing khasra No. 175 and 178, though fell in share of the appellant but the 'Jamabandi', was recorded in the name of defendant/non-appellant No. 1. For the property has now gained huge appreciation, and therefore, the defendants are attempting to sell of the property to respondent No. 4 to 8. 7. It is, in the aforesaid factual matrix the plaintiff/appellant instituted the suit proceedings, along with an application, for Temporary Injunction, which has been declined. 8. Per contra ; Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned Senior counsel, while supporting the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2016, declining the application for grant of Temporary Injunction, asserted that though the plaintiff/appellant has detailed out various properties, which allegedly were the properties of the partnership/HUF but the suit proceedings have been instituted only with reference to the agricultural land in Khasra No. 175 and 178. 9. 9. Referring to the specific findings, arrived at by the Court below, learned counsel would urge that the defendant/non-appellant No. 1 and 3 (Brothers), are recorded tenants of the land in dispute, as would be evident from the findings arrived at by the Court below on the basis of record of rights. 10. It is further contended that the alleged family agreement/settlement dated 14th November, 1986, was allegedly executed 28 years ago and its execution in itself is doubtful for the inherent interpolations in the document. That apart, the plaintiff/appellant did not bring on record any documentary evidence, reflecting his right title or interest in the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 175 and 178. 11. It is further empasized that the subject land involved herein, was transferred by a Gift Deed executed in favour of an educational institution, which is already functioning. The Gift Deed dated 26th October, 2007, has not been questioned, by the plaintiff/appellant till date. Moreover, on the agricultural land, a residential colony is upcoming and plots have been allotted, for which non-appellant No. 4 to 8, have been arrayed as party to the suit proceedings but no document in support of such allegation, was brought on record. The trial Court, on a scrupulous scrutiny of the evidence and materials available on record, declined the application for grant of injunction. Further, defendant No.3-Ram Gopal, instituted a separate suit No. 10/2015, for specific performance of agreement/settlement dated 14th November, 1986, seeking a restraint order. However, the application for Temporary Injunction has been declined in those proceedings as well. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 13. Indisputably, the alleged family agreement/settlement dated 14th November, 1986, came into existence 28 years ago. Though, the appellant/plaintiff, has referred to several documents, indicating partnership but there is no material available on record to indicate that the properties acquired, were out of the proceeds of the partnership. 14. 13. Indisputably, the alleged family agreement/settlement dated 14th November, 1986, came into existence 28 years ago. Though, the appellant/plaintiff, has referred to several documents, indicating partnership but there is no material available on record to indicate that the properties acquired, were out of the proceeds of the partnership. 14. Be that as it may, even if the three brothers who are party to the suit proceedings, conducted some joint business in partnership, that fact by itself cannot be taken as a proof of their rights and interests in the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 175 and 178, which are in name of defendant/brothers, as reflected from the Revenue Records. 15. The question of possession has also been examined by the Court below in detail and the reasons recorded and the basis of reasonings cannot be construed to be illegal or erroneous. The family settlement, of which only a photocopy has been filed, is to be examined by the trial Court. Hence, the view adopted by the trial Court while declining the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, cannot be said to be an illegal order that suffered with manifest illegalities so as to call for any interference by this Court. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay application also stands closed.