JUDGMENT 1. Heard finally with consent. 2. This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 rule 1 of CPC is directed against the order of trial Court dated 28.7.2014 whereby the application for temporary injunction filed by appellant has been rejected. 3. In brief the appellant has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction pleading that entire land belong to Gulab Khan father of appellant and respondent No.1 and during his lifetime he had partitioned the suit land between them in which the appellant had received the suit land and was using it but respondent No.1 without his consent unauthorisedly executed the sale deed dated 2.12.2013 in favour of respondent No.2. Hence by filing the application for temporary injunction a prayer was made for restraining respondents from interfering in his possession. 4. The application for temporary injunction was opposed by the respondent No.1 pleading that parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law and there is no concept of joint property. It was further pleaded that the appellant as well as uncle of respondent No.1 Yakub had executed the deed of relinquishment in favour of respondent No.1 on 25.1.2005 and that respondent No.1 has sold the suit property to respondent No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 2.12.2013 and has handed over the possession to respondent No.2. The sale was affected on account of family and business need of respondent No.1. 5. Trial Court considering the material produced by both the parties has rejected the prayer for temporary injunction. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is in possession of the suit land, therefore, the trial Court ought to have granted the prayer for temporary injunction. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has supported the order passed by the trial Court. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the trial Court has examined the material produced by both the parties and has recorded prima facie conclusion that respondent No. 2 is in possession of the suit property. It has been found by the trial Court that the appellant has suppressed the fact about existence of the house on the suit land. It has further been found that no material was produced by the appellant for proper identification of the suit land. It has been found by the trial Court that the appellant has suppressed the fact about existence of the house on the suit land. It has further been found that no material was produced by the appellant for proper identification of the suit land. On the contrary the respondent No.1 has produced the material to show that disputed land and the house constructed thereon is situated in ward No.6 and same was relinquished by the appellant and his uncle in favour of respondent No.1 and copy of relinquishment deed dated 25.1.2005 has been produced. It has further been noted that plea of partition raised by appellant is rebutted from his own notice sent to the respondents and in Kistbadn Khatoni and Khasra the suit land is recorded in the name of Gulab Khan. The appellant could not produce any material to show that he is in possession of the suit land nor any material has pointed out before this Court to establish the said fact. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances the trial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that respondent No.2 who is the purchaser of the suit land by way of registered sale deed is in possession of the suit land. Prima facie case and balance of convenience as well as factor of irreparable injury is in favour of respondent No.2. Hence no error has been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction. 10. There is no material produced or pointed out by the counsel for appellant to disturb or doubt the tentative conclusion arrived at by the trial Court in this regard. Hence no case for interference in the order of trial Court is made out. The miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed.