Short Note : By this revision, the applicant plaintiff seeks interference with the order made by the trial Court rejecting his application for grant of temporary injunction. The order impugned has been passed after giving necessary opportunity to the parties to cross-examine the persons whose affidavits were filed in support of the respective cases of the parties. 2. The trial Court was of the opinion that no case was made out for grant of temporary injunction as applied for. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the suit property is claimed by Gangaram to be his self-acquired property out of the income of his practice as an Ayurvedic practitioner. Gangaram has no issues. He has accordingly executed a trust deed for the charitable purpose of establishing an Aurvedic dispensary. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that he had already been adopted by Gangaram as his son and the suit house was not the self-acquired property but formed part of the ancestral property and as an adopted son, he has also a share in the same and Gangaram alone could not create a trust for any purpose. The trial Court has found that there was no prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The suit property comprises of a house, major portion of the same is in occupation of three tenants and the remaining part is in the occupation of Gangaram as stated by the defendants. The plaintiff however, claims that he along with his adoptive father Gangaram is residing in the remaining portion of the premises. Held : Shri M.C. Jain, learned counsel for the non-applicants has rightly and fairly stated that there will be no objection if the non-applicants trustees me directed to recover the rent and deposit the, same with the trial Court. Shri Jain also stated that actually speaking, the plaintiff himself is not residing in any part of the house. The portion which is not in occupation of the tenant is in the occupation of Gangaram and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no question of plaintiff being in possession. 5. Shri Jain submitted that during the pendency of the suit, stows quo regarding possession will be maintained. I have gone through the order impugned and the material on record. 5. Shri Jain submitted that during the pendency of the suit, stows quo regarding possession will be maintained. I have gone through the order impugned and the material on record. I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interference with the order made by the trial Court in exercise of it's discretion while deciding the application for temporary injunction. The order cannot be said to be illegal without jurisdiction or having been made with any material irregularity. The plaintiff could not produce any material on record in support of his contention that the house was constructed out of funds received by sale of ancestral property. Except his bare say, there is nothing on, record to infer so even prima facie. 6. However, as already suggested by Shri M.C. Jain, counsel for the non-applicant, it is directed that status quo regarding actual possession shall be maintained and the Trustees shall deposit the amount of rent, which they may recover every month, with the trial Court. The amount shall remain in deposit with the trial Court and the disposal of the same will be according to the directions as may be given by the trial Court while deciding the suit finally. The trustees shall maintain the account of the recovery of rent and may obtain necessary permission from the Court as may be necessary from time to time for expenses to be incurred for the maintenance of the property. The account shall be furnished every month and the amount of rent recovered shall be deposited with the trial Court by the 15th of every months, according to English calendar. Appeal dismissed.