JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated May 18, 1982, of the of Judge, Churu, restraining the appellant from alienating or transferring the suit property and raising constructions during the pendency of the suit. 2. The suit property is a Nohra measuring 1285⅞yds. situated in Sardarshahar. It originally belonged to Magni Devi, who was the maternal grandmother of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Magni Devi gifted the property to Ratni Devi, mother of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 by a Tamleeknama dated Sept. 6, 1963. Ratni Devi died on Jan. 4, 1969. After her death, her sons, respondents Nos. 1 to 4, and her husband, respondent No. 5, inherited the property. On Sept. 14, 1977, respondent No. 5, who is the father of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 sold the property to the appellant. At that time, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were minors. This was done without obtaining the permission of the Court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956. In 1982. a suit was filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 for a declaration that the sale made in favour of the appellant by respondent No. 5 was null and void, and, in the alternative it was prayed that the plaintiffs may be granted the right of resumption in respect of the sale. Along with the suit, an application for injunction restraining the appellant from alienating or transferring the plot or raising any construction thereon was also filed by plaintiffs. This application was allowed by the learned District Judge, Churu, by the order under appeal. The present appeal is directed against that order. 3. During the pendency of the appeal this court on Nov. 15, 1983, passed the following order:- "15-11-83 Hon'ble Shri S.K. Mal Lodha, J. Mr. N.M. Singhavi for the appellant. Mr. Singhvi learned Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends that if permission for raising construction is granted and the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge, Churu, is modified to this extent, he will remove the construction in case the plaintiff respondent succeeds in the suit. Learned Counsel for the appellant is directed to call the appellant in court and if necessary, he shall give an undertaking in writing. Mr. Singhvi prays that the appeal may be taken up for admission on November 28, 1983. Put up for admission on November 28-1983. Learned Counsel for the appellant is directed to call the appellant in court and if necessary, he shall give an undertaking in writing. Mr. Singhvi prays that the appeal may be taken up for admission on November 28, 1983. Put up for admission on November 28-1983. sd/-S.M. Lodha, J." 4. Subsequently, on 17-4-1986, the following order was passed by the Court:- "17-4-1986 Hon'ble Shri. S.K. Mal Lodha, J. Mr. N.M. Singhvi for the appellant. Mr. P.K. Bhansali for the respondent. The case has come up before me in view of the order-sheet dated March 10, 1986. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard. Perused the relevant order-sheets a and particularly dated November 15, 1983, recorded in the main appeal file and also of February 25, 1986, in the stay file for the disposal of the stay application. The undertaking was furnished by the learned Counsel for the appellant on March 10, 1986. In view of the undertaking furnished on March 10, 1986, the stay application is disposed of. The operation of the order under appeal is stayed on the condition that until the decision of the appeal if any construction is made by the appellant he will remove the same and restore the plot in the position in which it exists' today in terms of the undertaking furnished by him. The stay application accordingly stands disposed of. sd/- S.M. Lodha, J." 5. Shri A.K. Rajvanshi, counsel for the appellant, has contended that the order passed by the learned District Judge, so far as it restrains the appellant from alienating or transferring the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit may not be disturbed at this stage but the restraint put on the appellant by the learned District Judge on raising constructions needs to be lifted. Learned Counsel submits that the appellant should be allowed to make construction on the property during the pendency of the suit. As seen above, the appellant was allowed to raise construction on the undertaking given by him, as per the orders of this Court dated Nov. 15, 1983 and April 17, 1986. The suit is pending in the Trial Court since 1982. It would not be proper to change the situation in any way at this stage. As seen above, the appellant was allowed to raise construction on the undertaking given by him, as per the orders of this Court dated Nov. 15, 1983 and April 17, 1986. The suit is pending in the Trial Court since 1982. It would not be proper to change the situation in any way at this stage. To me, it appears just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case that the position as it prevails today, should be maintained during the pendency of the suit. The suit itself should be decided expeditiously. If any construction have been made in pursuance of the undertaking given by the appellant in terms of the orders of this court as mentioned above, those constructions shall be subject to the said undertaking. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction that status quo as regards constructions as exists today shall be maintained during the pendency of the suit in Trial Court. The directions given in this Court to the appellant not to alienate or transfer the suit property during the pendency of the suit shall stand. As the matter has become old, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months from today. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on July 5, 1988, to take further direction. No order as to costs of the appeal in this Court. The record of the learned Court .below shall be returned forthwith.Appeal disposed. *******