ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rahulkumar V. Makwana for appellant and learned advocate Mr. Gaurav S. Mathur for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Upon joint request and consent of learned advocates for both the parties, this Appeal from Order is taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of this Appeal from Order, the appellant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhachau-Kachchh below application - Exhibit 5 preferred in Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 2021. (B) xxx xx xxx.” 4. The brief facts leading to the present Appeal from Order are as under: 4.1 The appellant original plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 2021 for relief of declaration, cancellation of the WILL dated 15.10.2019 and a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2020 and other ancillary reliefs of permanent injunction. 4.2 The original plaintiff moved an application below Exhibit-5 praying for relief of temporary injunction seeking relief of restraining the defendants from transferring and constructing any construction over the suit land, which is situated at land bearing Revenue Survey No. 342 of village Ambaliyara, Taluka Bhachau-Kachchh. The injunction application below Exhibit-5 of the present appellant came to be dismissed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhachau-Kachchh on 13.12.2022. Against which, present Appeal from Order is preferred by the appellant before this Court. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed, declaration and cancellation of the WILL dated 15.10.2019. It is submitted that the plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of registered WILL dated 03.07.2013, which was executed by one Ladha Hamira Hira Chhanga and the suit property was bequeathed to present appellant and one Velji Premaji Harijan. 5.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the WILL dated 15.10.2019 is sham and bogus WILL and the same is neither registered nor notarized WILL. Hence, the original defendant No. 1 has not acquired any right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of the said Will. It is further submitted that the appellant is the owner of the land by virtue of registered WILL dated 03.07.2013. Hence, the original defendant No. 1 has not acquired any right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of the said Will. It is further submitted that the appellant is the owner of the land by virtue of registered WILL dated 03.07.2013. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application below Exhibit-5. 6. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has supported the decision of the learned trial Court in rejecting injunction application. Learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that there is no prima-facie case in favour of the appellant-original plaintiff and the learned trial Court has rightly held that in absence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, no equitable relief can be granted in favour of the plaintiff. 7. It is further submitted that the deceased Ladha Hamira Hira Chhanga had expired on 02.12.2019 and before that he had executed a WILL in favour of the respondent No. 1 on 15.10.2019, whereby the property was bequeathed to respondent No. 1 and one Velji Premji Harijan. After the death of Ladha Hamira Hira Chhanga, name of the respondent No. 1 was mutated, pursuant to the said WILL. Hence, it is submitted that WILL dated 15.10.2019 has been implemented in favour of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 24.11.2020, sold the property in question to the respondent No. 2 herein and since then, respondent No. 2 is the holder of valid title. 8. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that no injunction will be granted against the true owner. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the factual aspects and unless and until the same are contrary to the record, this Court may not interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 9. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3077 and in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, 2011 AIR SCW 6385. 10. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for the respective parties, a limited question which is under consideration is whether the appellant has prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour in the present set of facts. 11. On close perusal of the plaint, the reliefs sought for, are only with regard to the declaration, cancellation of WILL dated 15.10.2019 and registered sale deed dated 24.11.2020 and permanent injunction. Though the case of the plaintiff is based on registered WILL dated 03.07.2013, no prayers are sought for with regard to the confirmation of the WILL from a Civil Court. 12. So far as the WILL dated 15.10.2019 is concerned, the said WILL has been implemented in favour of respondent No. 1 by virtue of a mutation entry No. 3840 on 17.06.2020 and thereafter, the registered sale deed has been executed in favour of respondent No. 2 on 24.11.2020. If reference is taken of an agreement dated 11.03.2016 executed between the present appellant and one Velji Premaji Harijan, it transpires that the suit property stood in the name of Government when the said MOU was executed. Even there is mentioned about some sale transactions between the testator and the present appellant and Velji Premaji Harijan. From the sale deed it can be culled out the respondent No. 1 had initiated proceedings for the conversion of suit from new tenure to old tenure. And the suit land was converted into old tenure by order dated 22.10.2020. 13. So far as prima-facie case is concerned, the appellant has failed to establish prima facie title of the property in question. In the present case, except the registered WILL, there is nothing on record to show that plaintiff has interest in the suit property. In absence of specific prayer either for letter of administration or for confirmation of the WILL, no case can be said to have been made out by the plaintiff for equitable relief of injunction. The plaintiff can’t have a prima facie case in absence of title qua suit property. Plaintiff did not go for mutation of name in the revenue record on the basis of registered WILL after the death of Hamirchhanga. Though mutation of name in revenue record is for fiscal purpose only and the same can’t be used for showing title of property. Plaintiff did not go for mutation of name in the revenue record on the basis of registered WILL after the death of Hamirchhanga. Though mutation of name in revenue record is for fiscal purpose only and the same can’t be used for showing title of property. But by not taking steps for the execution of WILL after the death of testator, amounts to lack of prima facie case. 14. In the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, 2011 AIR SCW 6385 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16, which reads as under: “15 Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court in Asha M. Jain vs. Canara Bank, (2001) 94 DLT 841 , that the “concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction” when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law. 16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of ‘GPA sales’ or ‘SA/GPA/WILL transfers’ do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales.” 15. Thus, in the totality of the facts of the case, the learned trial Court has considered the factual aspect, which was placed on record and has also considered the aspect of prima facie case. While deciding the application, the appellant could not point out any infirmity in the order impugned, whereby this Court can interfere in the findings of the fact which has been arrived at by the learned trial Court. 16. In the totality of the facts and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred hereinabove, this Court is of the view that present Appeal from Order lacks merit. Hence, Appeal from Order is dismissed. The order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhachau-Kachchh in Special Suit No. 5 of 2021 does not require to be interfered with. Accordingly, the connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.