JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Both the petitions stand directed by the plaintiff-petitioner herein (common in both) against the orders rendered by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Solan, whereby the latter Court affirmed the orders of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Nalagah, District, Solan, H.P., dismissing the application preferred before it by the petitioner herein under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC whereunder she claimed the hereinafter extracted relief :- ? it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents not to raise construction in, change the nature of, cut and remove standing tress and alienate and dispossess her from suit land i.e (1) land measuring 15 Bigha, comprised in Kh/kht. Nos. 21 min/21 min, bearing khasra Nos. 205 (3-03), 211 (3-18), 218 (6-08) and 219 (1-11), Kita-4 (ii) land measuring 9 Bigha 13 Biswa, comprised in Kh/kht. Nos 23 min/23 min, bearing khasra Nos. 214 (1-07), 216 (0-04) and 217 (8-02), kita-3 i.e. total land measuring 24 Bigha 13 biswa pertaining to and situated in the area of village Judi Kalan, HB No. 210, prg. Dharampur, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan, H.P, as is detailed in the jamabandi for the year 2001-02, during the pendency and final disposal of the main case in the interest of justice and equity.? 2. Also the learned Additional District Judge 1, Solan affirmed the orders rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P whereby the latter trial Court allowed the application preferred before it by the defendant/respondent herein embodying therein the hereinafter extracted relief? ?It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent may be retrained from causing interference in the ownership and possession of the applicant in the suit land comprised in khasra No. 205, 211, 218, 219, 214, 216 and 217 total measuring 24 Bigha 13 Biswas situated in Mauja Juddi kalan, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P and also restrained the respondent from making alienation, creating charge and third party interest on the suit land, further causing damage and waste to the suit land and also in the working and business of the applicant either by herself through her agents, servants, attorney, family members or any person claiming under her in any manner whatsoever till the final disposal of the counter claim.? 3. 3. For adjudging the legal soundness of the adjudication of the learned trial Court assailed before this Court at the instance of the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as the =plaintiff'), it is imperative to bear in mind the rudimentary principles governing the affording of or denial of the relief of ad-interim injunction as claimed before it respectively by the parties at contest. The rudimentary principles governing the affording or denial of relief of ad-interim injunction by the Court whereat they stood respectively espoused by the parties at lis stand extracted hereinafter:- 1) that the applicant/plaintiff has to prove prima facie case. II) The applicant/plaintiff has to prove that irreparable loss would cause to him/her in case, temporary injunction is not granted. III) The applicant/plaintiff has to established that balance of convenience lies in his/her favour. 4. The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the =defendant') acquired title over and upon the suit land under sale deed Nos. 1395 of 12.6.2006, whereunder suit land and other land measuring 38 Bigha and 17 biswas stood alienated by Mr. Arjun Behal to the defendant besides possession thereof also stood delivered to it. However, subsequently under sale deed No. 543 of 5.6.2010 the plaintiff acquired title to the suit land. The plaintiff concerted to dislodge the title acquired over and upon the suit land by the defendant under sale deeds No.1395 of 12.6.2006 on the score of the vendee thereunder acquiring title under sale deeds No. 2218 and 2219 of 8.8.2005 from the then minor Balbir Singh rendering the acquisition of title thereunder by the vendee of sale deeds No. 2218 and 2219 of 8.8.2005 to standing vitiated besides nullifying the acquisition of title over and upon the suit land by the defendant under sale deed No. 1395 of 12.6.2006. Even though, for succoring the factum of nullity hence ingraining the acquisition of title over and upon the suit land by the defendant under the aforesaid sale deed is canvassed to stand harbored upon a revision by the Assistant Collector concerned of the order recording/attesting mutation of ownership qua over and upon the suit land in favour of the defendant on the anvil of sale deed No. 1395 of 12.6.2006. Nonetheless as tenably reasoned by both the Courts below with revision of mutation aforesaid not perse divesting title qua over and upon the suit land acquired by the defendant under sale deed No. 1395 of 12.6.2006 title whereto rather stands acquired thereunder besides their validity standing stripped of legal efficacy only when sale deeds No. 2218 and 2219 of 8.8.2005 and 1395 of 12.6.2006 stand declared to be nonest by a decree of a Civil Court, appears to be both weighty as well as legally sound. With the Civil Court yet to adjudicate upon the factum of sale deed Nos. 2218 and 2219 of 8.8.2005 though standing vitiated with a purported vice of nullity their standing respectively executed by a vendor who given his minority thereat was legally incapacitated to alienate title qua it to Mr. Arjun Behal besides qua the factum of the aforesaid Arjun Behal the vendee thereunder obviously as a natural corollary being alike incapacitated to when no valid title stood vested in him under sale deeds No. 2218 and 2219 of 2005, to pass title acquired thereunder to the defendant under sale deed No. 1395 of 2006, the latter sale deed being also hence nonest. Consequently, extantly it would be inapt to conclude, predominantly with no material yet existing on record in display of execution of sale deed Nos. 2218 and 2219 of 8.8.2005 suffering nullification for lack of title inhering in the vendor thereunder arising from the factum of his thereat being a minor hence incapacitated to execute it, any inference of consequential vitiation imbuing the execution of sale deed No. 1395 of 12.6.2006 by Mr. Arjun Behl in favour of the defendant is not evokable. The apposite pleadings qua the aforesaid facets remain un-constituted besides remain unembodied in the plaint. Arjun Behl in favour of the defendant is not evokable. The apposite pleadings qua the aforesaid facets remain un-constituted besides remain unembodied in the plaint. Lack of apposite incorporation qua the aforesaid facets by the plaintiff in the plaint does also foist a prima-facie conclusion of the said objection qua the nullificatory effect begotten by sale deeds 2218 and 2219 of 8.8.2005 cascading upon the validity of sale deed No.1395 of 12.6.2006 as constituted only in the reply of the plaintiff to application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 preferred by the defendant before the learned trial Court, is insufficient, to constrain the learned trial Court to render a decree qua the sale deeds aforesaid being nonest merely for the reasons constituted by the plaintiff in her reply to the application aforesaid preferred before the learned trial Court by the defendant. In aftermath with there existing a manifestation of nullity ingraining the aforesaid sale deeds only in the reply furnished by the plaintiff to an application filed before the learned trial Court by the defendant contrarily its non-depiction in the plaint when would defacilitate the trial Court to render a decree qua the validity of the sale deeds aforesaid, necessarily with no decree being hence renderable by the learned trial Court in nullification of the sale deeds aforesaid, the stand qua their invalidation as stands espoused only in the reply furnished by the plaintiff to the apposite application of the defendant before the learned trial Court would not invest in her potent empowerment to canvass the said factum before this Court for dislodging the title acquired by Arjun Behal under sale deeds No. 2218 and 2219 of 8.8.2005 and title acquired therefrom by the defendant under sale deed No. 1395 of 12.6.2006. Prima-facie at this stage, the plaintiff has no prima-facie case. Prima-facie at this stage, the plaintiff has no prima-facie case. Moreover when the plaint instituted is merely for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction besides when no material also stands adduced at this stage by the plaintiff/petitioner, of the suit land while standing recorded joint inter-se the parties at lis wherein both hold rights as co-khatedhars, carrying an area more than the one constituted in the plaint as well as in the application moved before the learned trial Court by the plaintiff/petitioner herein for hence enabling this Court to conclude qua given the overlapping of land title whereon stands acquired by both the plaintiff and the defendant, of hence in case relief of ad-interim injunction stands refused, she in the event of the suit of the plaintiff standing decreed would in case the defendant is extantly permitted to subject the suit land to construction would stand precluded to hold possession of any portion of the land title whereto stands acquired by her under sale deed No.543 of 2010. Dehors the validity of sale deeds No.2218, 2219 of 8.8.2005 and 1395 of 12.6.2006 in the absence of aforesaid material, this Court is constrained to conclude of even in the face of suit of the plaintiff standing decreed there would be yet ownership rights available to her for theirs being exercised over upon the suit land even when the defendant is extantly permitted to subject it to use. Even otherwise the suit land being joint both the competing/contesting parties hold unity of tile and community of possession qua each inch of the land held by both as co-khatedars. The extant nonseverance of the joint status of joint land, severance whereof would stand sequelled only on its standing partitioned by metes and bounds, would also not forestall the defendant to subject it to exclusive use unless worthy material standing placed on record connoting the factum of the land subjected to use by the defendant being in excess to its share therein or of its being the best and valuable piece of land. However the aforesaid material is amiss. In aftermath, even in the absence of severance of joint status of the suit land by its standing partitioned by metes and bounds the defendant cannot be refused permission to subject it to use. 5. However the aforesaid material is amiss. In aftermath, even in the absence of severance of joint status of the suit land by its standing partitioned by metes and bounds the defendant cannot be refused permission to subject it to use. 5. The material as exiting on record comprised in certificate disclosing the factum of a sum of Rs.4,27,888/- standing defrayed as commission to the plaintiff by the defendant on account of sale of plots carved out on the suit land is a manifestation of acquiescence by the plaintiff of the defendant holding possession of the suit land preeminently with the knowledge of the plaintiff. An omission on the part of the plaintiff to unfold the said factum by casting apposite averments both in the suit as well as in the application instituted under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC before the learned trial Court is significatory of hers indulging in the vice of suggestio fallsi and suppressio veri which misdemeanors of the plaintiff debars her to claim the equitable relief of injunction foisted upon the principle of one who claims equity must come to the Court with clean hands. In sequel, with the plaintiff/petitioner herein coming for the reasons aforesaid to the Court with unclean hands, she stands debarred to claim the equitable relief of injunction. 6. Be that as it may, with no material existing on record with a display therein of Balbir Singh the vendor of Arjun Behl wherefrom the defendant under sale deed No.1395 of 12.6.2006 acquired title to the suit land not putting both in possession of the suit land or on his subsequently acquiring possession thereto his handing over its possession to the plaintiff at the time contemporaneous to the execution of a sale deed in her favour, renders open an inference of in coagulation with the defendant developing and improving the suit land by raising construction thereon for sale whereof the plaintiff stood paid commission by the defendant of balance of convenience inhering in the defendant. 7. Lastly, the factum of the plaintiff's receiving commission for selling the constructions raised on the suit land by the defendant constrains this Court to conclude that in the event of the defendant being restrained to carry construction over/upon the suit land, a large part of which already stand subjected to construction at its instance, would put it to irreparable loss. 8. 8. Since the aforesaid rudimentary principles governing the granting of or declining of the relief of ad-interim injunction for the reasons afore-stated stand clinched in favour of the defendant, this Court is constrained to hold of there being no merit in these petitions. Consequently, both the petitions are dismissed and the impugned order is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.