JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 21.5.2008 granting temporary injunction in suit filed by the plaintiffs Jeth Mal and M/s Dilip Kumar & Company seeking cancellation of sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 Shankar Lal in faovur of defendant No.1 Narender Jaypal and defendant No.3 Likhma Ram and defendant No.4 Sualal. 2. The learned trial Court in para 10 of the impugned order has given the reason that out of khasra No.1383 total measuring 12 bighas of land, 6 bighas of land was purchased by the plaintiff Jeth Mal and M/s Dilip Kumar & Company on 7.1.1977 from one Mst. Sayari Meghwal by registered sale deed and they constructed four godowns over the same. For remaining 6 bighas of the said khasra No.1383, the plaintiffs Jethmal and M/s Dilip Kumar & Company claimed adverse possession over the said portion of 6 bighas whereas the defendant No.2 Shankar Lal claimed to be owner of the said remaining portion of 6 bighas. Since the said 6 bighas portion is said to have been sold by defendant No.2 Shankar Lal to the defendant No.1 Narendra Jaypal and others, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs for cancellation of the said sale by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and others. 3. The learned trial court in the said impugned order has also given out the reason that from the application filed by defendant No.2 Shankar Lal before the Assistant Collector Parabatsar under Sections 48 to 52 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on 25.5.2002 it appears that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 - Jethmal and M/s Dilip Kumar & Company had agreed to give in exchange their land of 6 bighas in nearby khasra No.1382 to the defendant No.2 Shankar Lal in lieu of his giving exchange his khatedari of 6 bighas in the disputed khasra No.1383. The said application has remained pending since then. 4. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has only directed that during the pendency of the said suit for cancellation of sale deed in favour of defendants No.1, 3 and 4, the defendants would maintain the status quo of the suit property namely khasra No.1383 and the defendants No.1, 3 and 4 the purchasers under the disputed sale deed will not alienate the suit property further. 5. 5. Being aggrieved of the said order, the present appellants defendants before the trial court have approached this Court by way of present misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. 6. Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the admitted position of the plaintiffs that the said portion of 6 bighas of the land khasra No.1383 belonged to the defendant No.2 Shankar Lal, therefore, his sale in favour of the defendants No.1, 3 and 4 could not have been questioned and against the owner of the said portion of 6 bighas of land, no injunction could have been granted by the learned trial court. 7. On the other hand, Mrs. Deepika Vyas for Mr. Ranjeet Joshi argued that the dispute of khasra No.1383 only pertains to the said portion of 6 bighas of land and as far as the remaining 6 bighas of land purchased by the plaintiff by from Mst. Sayari Meghwal on 7.1.1977 is concerned, there is no dispute. Over this remaining portion of 6 bighas of land, since the plaintiff claimed an adverse possession against the defendant No.2, the sale by him in favour of the defendants No.1, 3 and 4 was questioned in the present suit and during the pendency of this said suit, the learned trial court was justified in granting temporary injunction directing the defendants to maintain the status quo of the suit land namely 6 bighas portion of khasra No.1383, therefore, the present appeal filed by the defendant is merit-less and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the record of the case and reasons given in the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in granting temporary injunction in the nature in which it had done in respect of said 6 bighas of land khasra No. 1383. 9. The very dispute arose because the application dated 25.5.2002 for recording the exchange of the land was pending before the Assistant Collector, Parabatsar and during the pendency of the said application the defendant No.2 transferred the said portion of 6 bighas of land in favour of defendants No.1, 3 and 4 and, therefore, the plaintiff had to file the present suit for cancellation of said sale deed. Since the rights of parties are finally to be determined in the said suit itself, during the pendency of the said suit it was only proper for the learned trial court in order to save the suit property to restrain the defendants from further alienation of suit and to direct the status quo to be maintained by the defendants and no valid exception can be taken to the same. 10. The appeal is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******