K. A. PUJ, J. ( 1 ) SINCE both these Appeals From order are arising out of the same Civil suit and since they are heard together, they are being heard and common order is passed whereby Appeal From order No. 335 of 2009 is admitted and appeal From Order No. 336 of 2009 is disposed off. ( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties, both the Appeals from Order are taken up for hearing. ( 3 ) APPEAL from Order No. 335 of 2009 is filed by the appellant- original defendant No. 4 challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Senior civil Judge, Vadodara on 18. 08. 2009 below an application Exhibit 5 in special Civil Suit No. 602 of 2008, whereby the learned Judge partly allowed the application Exhibit 5, and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit land. ( 4 ) APPEAL from Order No. 336 of 2009 is filed by the appellant original defendant No. 5 challenging the same order of learned Additional Senior Civil judge, Vadodara passed on 18. 08. 2009 below an application Exhibit 5 in special Civil Suit No. 602 of 2008. ( 5 ) MR. MIHIR Thakore, learned senior counsel with Mr. Parthiv Shah, learned advocate appears for the appellants and Mr. L. R. Pathan, learned Advocate with Mr. M. A. Sapa, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 original plaintiffs appears in Appeal from Order no. 335 of 2009. Mr. S. B. Vakil, learned advocate with Ms. A. R. Acharya. learned Advocate appears for the appellant and Mr. L. R. Pathan, learned advocate with Mr. M. A. Sapa, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs appears in Appeal from Order No. 336 of 2009. ( 6 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. l and 2 -original plaintiff Nos. 1/1 and 1/2 have filed special Civil Suit No. 602 of 2008 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 231, admeasuring 16911 sq mtr of Mouje daanteshwar, Tai. and Dist. Vadodara on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Late Shri mahendrakumar A. Vaidya who expired on 26. 8. 2001. After the demise of Late shri M. A. Vaidya, their names came to be mutated in the property card in respect of suit land on 28. 1. 2008. and Dist. Vadodara on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Late Shri mahendrakumar A. Vaidya who expired on 26. 8. 2001. After the demise of Late shri M. A. Vaidya, their names came to be mutated in the property card in respect of suit land on 28. 1. 2008. Despite they being legal heirs of deceased Shri M. A. Vaidya and though their names were mutated in the property card and though late Shri M. A. Vaidya expired on 26. 8. 2001, the Power of attorney holder i. e. respondent No. 4-original defendant No. 3 Shri Dhananjay v. Patel executed registered sale-deed in favour of the appellant on 2. 5. 2008. Hence, the respondent No. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs filed Special Civil suit No. 602 of 2008 for cancellation of raja Chitthi granted by the respondent no. 6-defendant No. 6 i. e. Vadodara mahanagar Seva Sadan. The respondent nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs have also prayed for stay restraining all the original defendant Nos. 1 to 5 including the appellant from transfering the suit land. Along with the suit, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 also filed an application exhibit 5 for temporary injunction. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the sides passed the impugned order dated 18. 8. 2009 below an application Exhibit 5 whereby he partly allowed application and directed the parties to maintain status quo (qua) the suit land. ( 7 ) IT is this order which is under challenge in both these Appeals from order. ( 8 ) MR. MIHIR Thakore, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in appeal from Order No. 335 of 2009 has submitted that the appellant has got the registered agreement to sell on 10. 04. 2001 and admittedly, the said agreement to sell was signed by, late shri M. A. Vaidya, the father of the respondent Nos. l and 2 and also the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 along with respondent No. 3 an uncle of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3. He has further submitted that by the said agreement to sell, the appellant was required to pay Rs. 31/- lacs and on the date of execution of the documents, rs. 3/- lacs were paid by cheque. Hence, during the life time of father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3. He has further submitted that by the said agreement to sell, the appellant was required to pay Rs. 31/- lacs and on the date of execution of the documents, rs. 3/- lacs were paid by cheque. Hence, during the life time of father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, he had decided to sell the property to the appellant and almost the entire consideration was paid during life time of father of respondent Nos. l and 2. He has further submitted that entire sale consideration was paid by way of cheques in and upto february. 2002. The appellant has also produced a chart showing the mode of payment made to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and also the deceased Shri m. A. Vaidya, in reply filed by the appellant in response to the injunction application. He has therefore submitted that when the entire sale consideration has been paid pursuant to the agreement to sell, it is not necessary to execute the sale-deed. This aspect of the matter has not been considered or dealt with by the learned trial Judge. ( 9 ) MR. THAKORE, further submitted that the learned Trial Judge, while disposing off Exhibit 5 application has not considered various documents produced by the appellant. The appellant produced document vide list exhibit 31 and 37 which interalia includes village form No. 7/12, 8-A and village form No. 6 as well as copies of Index-II. Vide Exhibit 37, the appellant has produced the sale deeds which are executed in respect of second parcel of land i. e. revenue survey No. 238/1 of Village daanteshwar which was almost adjacent to suit land. The land bearing revenue survey No. 238/1 is also of the ownership of late Shri M. A. Vaidya and Narendrakumar A. Vaidya and the said land was also agreed to be sold to the appellant by the same registered agreement to sell dated 10. 04. 2001. The appellant has constructed almost 202 units out of which 189 units are already sold and the sale deeds are also executed and 125 entries are also posted in revenue records i. e. village form 7/12 and 45 entries are posted in the property cards. Some of the sale deeds are executed way-back in 2002 and some of the members have been residing since 2002. Mr. Thakore, has, therefore, submitted that the respondent Nos. Some of the sale deeds are executed way-back in 2002 and some of the members have been residing since 2002. Mr. Thakore, has, therefore, submitted that the respondent Nos. l and 2-original plaintiffs have approached the trial court at a very belated stage and hence the learned trial Judge should not have shown any indulgence in the matter. ( 10 ) MR. THAKORE further submitted that as per the settled position of law, equitable relief cannot be granted when the suit is filed after a lapse of time. For this purpose, he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Veetrag Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd. reported in 1996 (1)GLH 179 . He has submitted that despite this decision having been cited, the learned Trial judge has not even discussed as to how the principles laid down in the said decision would not come to the rescue of the appellant. Mr. Thakore further submitted that the agreement to sell was executed for two survey numbers i. e. 231 and 238/1. In respect of land bearing survey No. 238/1. no suit is filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and almost 200 units are already constructed. So far as suit land bearing survey No. 231 is concerned. 44 units are constructed and 13 sale-deeds are executed. Thus, there is an obvious delay in filing the suit and hence discretionary relief which is granted by the learned trial Judge should not have been granted in favour of respondent Nos. l and 2. ( 11 ) MR. THAKORE further submitted that in para-18 of the impugned order and judgment, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that there are certain undisputed facts. These undisputed facts are as under:- (i) Deceased late Shri M. A. Vaidya and Shri N. A. Vaidya were the owners and occupiers of land bearing Survey no. 231 and 238/1 situated at village daanteshwar, Vadodara. (ii) Shri M. A. Vaidya and Shri n. A. Vaidya and others have executed an irrevocable power of attorney in respect of suit land in favour of Shri dhananjay V. Patel i. e. respondent no. 4-original defendant No. 3 on 22. 12. 1998. (iii) Development agreement came to be executed in favour of appellant on 22. 12. 1998. (ii) Shri M. A. Vaidya and Shri n. A. Vaidya and others have executed an irrevocable power of attorney in respect of suit land in favour of Shri dhananjay V. Patel i. e. respondent no. 4-original defendant No. 3 on 22. 12. 1998. (iii) Development agreement came to be executed in favour of appellant on 22. 12. 1998. (iv) Shri M. A. Vaidya and Shri n. A. Vaidya had executed agreement to sell in respect of suit land on 10. 04. 2001 in favour of appellant. (v) Shri M. A. Vaidya died on 26. 08. 2001. (vi) Respondent Nos. l and 2 i. e. original plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the legal heirs of late Shri m. A. Vaidya. On the basis of the above undisputed facts, Mr. Thakore, has submitted that the development agreement is executed in favour of appellant, registered agreement to sell is also executed in favour of appellant and the entire sale consideration was paid by cheques to the respondent No. 3, late Shri M. A. Vaidya and legal heirs of late Shri M. A. Vaidya who are respondent Nos. 4 and 5. He further submitted that substantial construction has been raised in both the lands and as on today, no outstanding amount is required to be paid by the appellant. He has therefore submitted that the respondent is not going to suffer any substantial injury and hence the Trial court is not justified in granting the order of status quo. In support of these submissions, Mr. Thakore relied upon decision of Apex Court in the case of ece Industries Limited vs. S. P. Real estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (10) SCALE 737. ( 12 ) MR. Thakore further submitted that the learned Trial judge has given unnecessary weightage to the fact that when late Shri M. A. Vaidya has expired, the act of respondent No. 6-Power of attorney holder of late Shri m. A. Vaidya, is not a bona fide act and is illegal and bad in law. He submitted that even after the demise of late Shri m. A. Vaidya, the power of attorney holder i. e. Dhananjay Patel has acted as power of attorney holder for protecting interest of late Shri M. A. Vaidya and n. A. Vaidya. The said power of attorney holder has also filed affidavit dated 31. 8. 199 and 28. 8. He submitted that even after the demise of late Shri m. A. Vaidya, the power of attorney holder i. e. Dhananjay Patel has acted as power of attorney holder for protecting interest of late Shri M. A. Vaidya and n. A. Vaidya. The said power of attorney holder has also filed affidavit dated 31. 8. 199 and 28. 8. 2001 before the ULC Authorities and because of which only, the said properties were released by the ULC Authorities. The said affidavits are produced by respondent Nos. l and 2-original plaintiffs vide Exhibit 4/10 and 4/11 in the suit. The Power of attorney has also contested various proceedings initiated by and against late Shri M. A. Vaidya and Shri N. A. Vaidya. Thus, even after the demise of Shri M. A. Vaidya, the power of attorney was working in the interest of family members of m. A. Vaidya and has bona fide fulfilled the liabilities of late Shri M. A. Vaidya and N. A. Vaidya by executing sale deed in favour of appellant. He has therefore submitted that finding of the learned trial Judge to the fact that no consent is obtained or signatures of legal heirs of late Shri M. A. Vaidya are not obtained prior to execution of sale deed, is misconceived, illegal and bad in law and hence such findings are required to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission Mr. Thakore relied on the decision of this Court in the case of her Highness Maharani Shantadevi vs. Savjibhai H. Patel and Ors. , 1998 (2) GLH 70 . ( 13 ) MR. THAKORE further submitted that appellant is a bona fide purchaser who has invested huge amount in the suit land. The appellant has paid Rs. 31/-lacs by virtue of agreement to sell. The appellant has paid Rs. 41,44,200/-towards the stamp duty on the sale deed executed in favour of appellant and had invested crores of rupees for development of land. Without considering any of these aspects, the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order which appears to be illegal and hence requires to be quashed and set aside. ( 14 ) MR. THAKORE further submitted that finding of the learned trial Judge to the effect that on the death of Shri m. A. Vaidya on 26. 08. Without considering any of these aspects, the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order which appears to be illegal and hence requires to be quashed and set aside. ( 14 ) MR. THAKORE further submitted that finding of the learned trial Judge to the effect that on the death of Shri m. A. Vaidya on 26. 08. 2001, whatever power of attorney executed by him in favour of respondent No. 6/original defendant No. 3 stands automatically revoked. Even on assumption that this finding is correct, the development agreement was executed in favour of appellant wayback in 1998 and the appellant was permitted to develop the suit land. The rights were crystalized by executing registered agreement to sell in favour of appellant. By the said registered agreement to sell, the appellant was required to pay Rs. 31/-lacs towards the sale consideration which has already been paid way back in February, 2002. ( 15 ) TAKING all these facts on record into consideration, Mr. Thakore submitted that once the entire consideration has been paid and development agreement is also executed, sale deed is mere formality and that formality has been observed by power of attorney holder after the demise of late Shri M. A. Vaidya and simply on that ground all these transactions cannot be said to be vitiated. ( 16 ) MR. THAKORE further submitted that the findings of the learned trial judge that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -original plaintiffs have not filed the suit for partition is not sustainable on facts as well as in law. As a matter of fact, this is nothing but an intelligent attempt on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to cancell the duly executed registered sale deed. He submitted that the respondent Nos. l and 2 are very well aware that if they would file suit for partition, then probably their suit would be barred by law of limitation. ( 17 ) IT is the intention of the respondent Nos. l and 2 that by getting the sale deed cancelled which is executed in favour of the appellant, all the family members could get the right in the suit land. He has submitted that despite the fact that the appellant did pay the entire amount to respondent nos. ( 17 ) IT is the intention of the respondent Nos. l and 2 that by getting the sale deed cancelled which is executed in favour of the appellant, all the family members could get the right in the suit land. He has submitted that despite the fact that the appellant did pay the entire amount to respondent nos. 3 to 5, only with a view to show its bona fide, the appellant had shown its readiness and willingness in para-23 of its reply to deposit the share, by way of security, of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial Court. However, this aspect was not considered by learned trial Judge while passing the impugned order. ( 18 ) MR. THAKORE further submitted that so far as second power of attorney is concerned, the same is produced on record before the trial Court by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This document is also signed by Shri M. A. Vaidya and mr. N. A. Vaidya. Execution of this document has not been denied by respondent No. 3 in his reply affidavit vide Exhibit 30. Signature on the said power of attorney executed by respective parties were put prior to death of late Shri M. A. Vaidya and same was notarized much later on 29. 9. 2001. On the contrary, in the said reply, it is the clear stand of respondent nos. 3 to 5 that as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are married, they have no right in the suit land. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned trial Judge while passing the impugned order. ( 19 ) MR. THAKORE further submitted that as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and as per amendment in Section 6, the said Section would not affect or invalidate any alienation including any partition or dispute of the property which had taken place before 20. 12. 2004. In the present case, the property was already decided to be sold to the appellant in 2001 and prior to that also, development agreement was executed in 1998 and entire consideration was paid way-back in february, 2002. Therefore, respondent nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs have no right in the suit property and hence injunction granted by the learned trial judge is absolutely illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside. In support of this submission, mr. Therefore, respondent nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs have no right in the suit property and hence injunction granted by the learned trial judge is absolutely illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside. In support of this submission, mr. Thakore, relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Her Highness maharani Shantadevi vs. Savjibhai H. Patel and Ors. reported in 1998 (2)G. L. H. 70. ( 20 ) BASED on his submissions on facts as well as in law, Mr. Thakore, learned senior Counsel has strongly urged that there is strong prima facie case on merits in favour of appellant and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellant and hence interim relief granted by the trial Court is required to be vacated and the appeal deserves to be allowed. ( 21 ) MR. S. B. Vakil, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in appeal from Order No. 336 of 2009 has submitted that late Shri M. A. Vaidya was party to the development agreement dated 22. 12. 1998, which was a concluded transaction between the appellant as well as respondent no. 7-original defendant No. 4 in the suit. He has further submitted that development agreement could not come to an end on the death of Shri m. A. Vaidya and the right of developer thereunder would continue even after the death of late Shri M. A. Vaidya and would be binding on legal heirs. He has therefore submitted that respondent nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs have no right to ask for any injunction restraining the appellant from making or causing to be made any development on the suit land only because their claims are shared which would be 1/4th in the share left by late Shri m. A. Vaidya. ( 22 ) MR. Vakil further submitted that late Shri M. A. Vaidya expired on 26. 8. 2001. The development work was started since 1999 and continued right upto 18. 08. 2009. The respondent No. 1-original plaintiff had not specifically claimed to the suit land which forms part of properties of late Shri m. A. Vaidya. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled to such property left by late Shri M. A. Vaidya on partition with co-sharers. 08. 2009. The respondent No. 1-original plaintiff had not specifically claimed to the suit land which forms part of properties of late Shri m. A. Vaidya. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled to such property left by late Shri M. A. Vaidya on partition with co-sharers. He has submitted that it is well settled position in law that if a person Claiming interest in a land allowed construction to be made thereon without any hindrance cannot after the land is built upon seek removal of encroachment. The suit land has been partially , built upon. The development agreement binds the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and they cannot seek removal of construction or obstruct or prevent developers from making construction on the suit land in accordance with development agreement. He has further submitted that clause 13 of the Development agreement provides that land owners bound to execute the Banakhat and sale-deed in favour of members to whom plots with construction made by the developers were allotted. He, therefore, submitted that respondent nos. 1 and 2 cannot challenge their actions simply by Claiming share in the property left by late Shri M. A. Vaidya. He has further submitted that the Claim of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for cancellation of document i. e. sale deed dated 2. 5. 2008 is not acceptable and the obligation of respondent Nos. l and 2 under clause 13 of the Development agreement would hold good even if the sale deed is cancelled. He has further submitted that by Claiming a share in the property left by late Shri m. A. Vaidya, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot make a specific Claim with reference to any part of suit land or contrary to the development agreement. He, therefore, submitted that interim relief granted by the learned trial Judge is required to be vacated and the appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed. ( 23 ) MR. L. R. Pathan, learned advocate appearing for respondent nos. He, therefore, submitted that interim relief granted by the learned trial Judge is required to be vacated and the appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed. ( 23 ) MR. L. R. Pathan, learned advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 - original plaintiffs in both the appeals has submitted that power of attorney executed by late Shri m. A. Vaidya in favour of Shri dhananjay Patel is not coupled with any consideration and hence after the death of Shri M. A. Vadiya, the use of the power of attorney by Shri dhananjay Patel is absolutely illegal and on that basis he has no right to execute sale deed in favour of appellant. He has further submitted that said Shri dhananjay Patel has nothing to do with the appellant and there was no interconnection with these documents. He has further submitted that the document having been signed by Shri dhananjay Patel in favour of M/s. Jalaram Developers has no legal sanctity. He has further submitted that there is no dispute to the effect that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -original plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Shri m. A. Vaidya and they have every right to Claim share in the property left by late Shri M. A. Vaidya. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 2's consent was never obtained before entering into the sale deed in favour of appellant, the said transaction is absolutely null and void and they have every right to Claim cancellation of sale deed. In support of his submission, Mr. Pathan relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramdas vs. Sitaben and Ors. , reported in (2009) 7 SCC 444 wherein transfer of possession of entire property by one co-owner without consent and knowledge of other co-owners was effected. The self acquired property of deceased father is jointly held by son with daughter. The son has sold and delivered possession of property to the purchaser for consideration by executing sale deed and when the legality of the said transaction was challenged before the Court, it was held that son could not have sold more than his share nor could he have possession of property till its partition. The Court, thetefore, held that the appellants' possession of entire land was untenable. The Court, thetefore, held that the appellants' possession of entire land was untenable. The Court also held that said sale deed executed in favour of purchaser by the son is null and void to the extent of share of the sister and is not binding on her. The Court has held that the relief on the ground of equity would not be justified. The Court issued direction to hand over possession of property to the sister failing which sister is entitled to proceed with for execution of decree and secure possession of portion of the property. ( 24 ) BASED on this decision and considering the facts of the case mr. Pathan submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs' share could not have been sold by respondent N0. 6 and hence, the order passed by the learned trial Judge granting interim relief should not be interfered with by the Court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and both the appeals are accordingly required to be dismissed. ( 25 ) HAVING heard the learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties and having gone through the impugned order and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge below an application Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit no. 602 of 2008 as well as the documents produced before the Court, the Court is of the view that Appeal from Order No. 335 of 2009 deserves to be admitted and order passed by the trial Court directing the parties to maintain status quo deserves to be stayed subject to certain conditions and/or directions, till the final disposal of appeal. ( 26 ) THE Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs are legal heirs of late shri M. A. Vaidya. The plaintiffs have filed the suit on 19. 11. 2008 i. e. much after the death of late Shri M. A. Vaidya on 26. 8. 2001. During the life-time of late Shri M. A. Vaidya, Development agreement was executed on 22. 12. 1998 and Registered Agreement for sale was executed on 10. 4. 2001. Though the plaintiffs have referred to the irrevocable power of attorney dated 22. 12. 1998 executed by late Shri m. A. Vaidya along with others, they conveniently remained silent about development Agreement and registered Agreement for sale and straightaway challenged the Registered sale-deed dated 2. 5. 2008 so as to bring the suit within period of limitation. 4. 2001. Though the plaintiffs have referred to the irrevocable power of attorney dated 22. 12. 1998 executed by late Shri m. A. Vaidya along with others, they conveniently remained silent about development Agreement and registered Agreement for sale and straightaway challenged the Registered sale-deed dated 2. 5. 2008 so as to bring the suit within period of limitation. The court is, therefore, of the view that the plaintiffs have not only come before the court at a belated stage, but also they have not come with clean hands and suppressed material facts before the court, which disentitle them from claiming equitable relief from the court. ( 27 ) THE plaintiffs have prayed for cancellation of sale deed on the ground that they are having their undivided share in the suit property by virtue of inheritance and they have not given any consent for sale of suit property. Even if the suit property is considered to be joint family property, the decision to sell the suit property was taken during the life-time of late Shri M. A. Vaidya and entire sale-consideration was received during the period from 1999 to 2002. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 could not file any suit for partition or even suit for cancellation of sale-deed inasmuch as they are signatories to the documents and they have received sale-consideration from the appellant. What they could not do directly, could not be permitted to do indirectly. Their challenge to the documents and transactions in question is therefore, wholly unsustainable. A right to buy and develop the suit property is created in favour of the appellant by virtue development agreement and registered Agreement for sale. Final sale-deed could not be executed in 2002 immediately after payment of entire sale-consideration because of non-observance of certain legal formalities. This would not, however, enable the plaintiffs to bring any action against the appellant. At the most, they are entitled to Claim their share in the sale-consideration, inter alia, received by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The appellant is believed to have the possession of suit property since 1998. Substantial construction has already been carried out and third parties' rights are created. The appellant has made the huge investment on the suit property. Having come to the Court at the belated stage, the plaintiffs could not put the clock back. 4 and 5. The appellant is believed to have the possession of suit property since 1998. Substantial construction has already been carried out and third parties' rights are created. The appellant has made the huge investment on the suit property. Having come to the Court at the belated stage, the plaintiffs could not put the clock back. If they ultimately succeed in the suit, relief may be moulded accordingly and just and fair damages may be awarded to them for the loss, if any, suffered by them. ( 28 ) THE Court is mindful of the fact that there are certain serious issues which put even a question mark against the conduct of the appellant. Execution of sale deed through the power of attorney holder, after the death of late shri M. A. Vaidya and execution of power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 5 on 29. 9. 2001 after the death of late Shri M. A. Vaidya on 26. 8. 2001 - are such issues which may inspire the Court to take an adverse view against the appellant. They are, however, to be viewed in light of the stand taken by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in their written statement and the suppression of relevant facts in the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the documents executed during the life-time of late shri M. A. Vaidya and based on that, huge investment made by the appellant. Resultant effect would possibly be that the balance of convenience is on the side of the appellant. While arriving at this conclusion, the Court has considered the following judgments of this Court and/or Apex Court. 28. 1. In the case of Her Highness maharani Shatadevi vs. Savjibhai H. Patel and Ors. , reported in 1998 (2)GLH 70 , a question arose before the division Bench of this Court as to how will be the effect of death of the defendant-appellant and as to whether the agreement can be said to have come to an end or automatically terminated and authority stands revoked by the death of the principal during the pendency of the suit. From the analysis of the documents in question, the Court found that the parties had agreed for the execution of the scheme for the welfare of the members of the weaker Section. From the analysis of the documents in question, the Court found that the parties had agreed for the execution of the scheme for the welfare of the members of the weaker Section. The scheme was required to have a statutory sanction and the carrying out of the same could not be intended to cease on the ground of unfortunate death of the owner. The Court further found that no termination can be brought about even on account of death as is clearly provided in the statutory illustration given under Section 202 of the Contract Act. The Court further referred to Halsbury's Laws of england, 4th Edition, Vol. 1, at page-524 in para 872, it is mentioned as under: "power of attorney. Where a power of attorney is expressed to be irrevocable and is given to secure a proprietary interest of the donee or the performance of an obligation owed to the donee, the power is irrevocable either by the donor without the consent of the donee or by the death, incapacity, bankruptcy, winding up or dissolution of the donor, so long as the donee has the interest or the obligation remains undischarged. A power of attorney given to secure a proprietary interest may be given to the person entitled to the interest and persons deriving title under him to that interest, and those persons will be the duly constituted donees of the power for all the purposes of the power, without prejudice to any right to appoint substitutes given by the power. " 28. 2. The Court further referred to bowstead and Reynolda on Agency, 16th Edition, at page Nos. 660-661. where it has been mentioned that the authority expressed to be irrevocable is not determined by death, etc. In Chitty on Contract, 27th Edition, Vol. 2 pages 94-95, the learned Author while dealing with the "termination of Authority" has commented that, if there is an interest coupled with the authority, that is, if the agreement is entered into by deed or on sufficient consideration, whereby an authority is given for the purpose of providing a security, such an authority is irrevocable even by death, etc. 28. 3. 28. 3. After considering the facts of the case and the law on the subject, the court held that once the documents are executed, natural consequences have to follow and the documents cannot be said to have ceased to be operative unless and until it is shown that documents have been executed playing fraud or signatures are not genuine. There is nothing on record to show that these documents were got executed by playing any fraud and it is nobody's case that documents were not executed, rather it is admitted that documents had been executed and they had been duly signed. 28. 4. In Bhagwanbhai karamanbhai Bharvad vs. Arogyanagar Co Operative Housing society Limited in 2004 (1) GLR 506 , this Court after relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in case of Her Highness Maharani shantadevi (supra), held that agency would not be terminated under Section 202 of the Contract Act, even after the death of person who has authorized, where there is no express contract for termination. The Court further took the view that invalid transaction per se must be invalid but it will not be invalid unless it is decided or declared to be so. The holder of power of attorney need not obtain consent of donor and Legal representatives in view of the fact that defendant had already parted his power for execution sale deed. Sale deeds will be deemed to be operative from the date of their execution. 28. 5. In the case of M. Gurudas and ors. vs. Rasaranjan and Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 3275 , the Court discussed about certain relevant aspects which are required to be taken into consideration while granting or refusing interim relief during the pendency of trial in suit. The Court observed, the properties may be valuable but would it be proper to issue an order of injunction restraining the appellants from dealing with properties in any manner whatsoever is the core question. They have not been able to enjoy development agreements. The properties have not been sold for a long time. The commercial property has not been put to any use. The condition of properties being remaining wholly unused could deteriorate. These issues are relevant. The Courts below did not pose these questions unto themselves and, thus, misdirected themselves in law. 28. 6. The properties have not been sold for a long time. The commercial property has not been put to any use. The condition of properties being remaining wholly unused could deteriorate. These issues are relevant. The Courts below did not pose these questions unto themselves and, thus, misdirected themselves in law. 28. 6. The Court further considered a question of some importance and that is whether in a situation of suit involving very valuable properties, the plaintiff would not ask to furnish any security in the event of dismissal of suit in respect to any of the properties and whether the defendants be sufficiently compensated. The Court also considered the conduct of the defendants indisputably very relevant and referred to its own judgment in the case of Gujarat Bottling Company ltd. reported in AIR 1995 SCW 3521 , wherein it is held that, under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the sate of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under Order 39, rule 1 or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings. 28. 7. The Court while granting an order of injunction would take into consideration as to whether the plaintiffs have prevaricated their stand from stage to stage. This question had to be adverted to by the trial Court while granting or refusing interim relief. 28. 8. The decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramdas (supra) relied on by Mr. 7. The Court while granting an order of injunction would take into consideration as to whether the plaintiffs have prevaricated their stand from stage to stage. This question had to be adverted to by the trial Court while granting or refusing interim relief. 28. 8. The decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramdas (supra) relied on by Mr. Pathan would not render any assistance to the plaintiffs as in that case, property was sold and possession was delivered by the son ignoring the share of the daughter and there being no partition of the property. In the present case, Development Agreement and agreement to Sale were executed by late Shri M. A. Vaidya alongwith others and possession was handed over during his life time. ( 29 ) IN view of the above order and in view of the fact the appellant of appeal No. 336 of 2009 and the original Defendant No. 5 is also the respondent No. 5 in Appeal From order No. 335 of 2006, there is no need to keep the Appeal From Order no. 336 of 2009 pending. He can either support or oppose the cause of that appellant and even assert his own challenge to the impugned order in that appeal. With this clarification and observation, Appeal From Order no. 336 of 2009 and Civii Application no. 9885 of 2009 preferred therein are accordingly disposed off. ( 30 ) FOR the for forgoing reasons. Appeal From Order No. 335 of 2009 is admitted and the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court is hereby stayed till the final disposal of this appeal. The Court would have finally disposed off this Appeal From Order. However, since, Mr. Pathan is appearing only for respondent Nos. l and 2 and other respondents are yet to be served and before passing any final order in the appeal, they are required to be heard. Hence, Notice of admission of Appeal From Order No. 335 of 2009 and notice of Rule in Civil Application no. 9884 of 2009 be issued to the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 reserving liberty to them to approach this Court, if they want an early hearing of Appeal and/or Vacation of interim relief. ( 31 ) THE conditions, and/or directions, referred to in Para-28 are as under:- (i) Since the suit property is sold at rs. 9884 of 2009 be issued to the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 reserving liberty to them to approach this Court, if they want an early hearing of Appeal and/or Vacation of interim relief. ( 31 ) THE conditions, and/or directions, referred to in Para-28 are as under:- (i) Since the suit property is sold at rs. 9,40,000/- and late Shri m. A. Vaidya had got 1/2 share in the said property, the legal heirs of late shri M. A. Vaidya would naturally get 1/2 share. The plaintiffs' collective share comes to 1/2 of the said 1/2 share, the value of which comes to rs. 2,35,000/ -. The appellant is, therefore, directed to deposit rs. 2,35,000/- with the trial Court towards the security of the plaintiffs' claim. The entitlement of this amount would depend on the final outcome of the suit. (ii) Since the stay granted by the trial Court in the form of status quo order is vacated by this Court, the appellant is permitted to carry out the construction and to deal with the suit property in a manner the appellant likes, however, it is subject to the final outcome of the suit and the appellant or any body on their behalf shall not claim any equity. (iii) Any observation made and/or finding recorded either by the Trial court in the impugned order or by this court in this order is of prima facie nature and the trial Court shall decide the suit on the basis of evidence available on record and without being influenced by these interim orders. (iv) An admission of appeal against the interim order of the trial Court would not desist from proceeding with the suit. Hence, the trial Court shall decide and dispose off the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court or from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties to the suit shall cooperate the trial Court in early disposal of the suit. ( 32 ) IN the result, Appeal From order No. 335 of 2009 is admitted and notice of Admission of Appeal From order No. 335 of 2009 and Notice of rule in Civil Application No. 9884 of 2009 be issued on the Respondent nos. The parties to the suit shall cooperate the trial Court in early disposal of the suit. ( 32 ) IN the result, Appeal From order No. 335 of 2009 is admitted and notice of Admission of Appeal From order No. 335 of 2009 and Notice of rule in Civil Application No. 9884 of 2009 be issued on the Respondent nos. 3 to 6, whereas Appeal From order No. 336 of 2009 and Civil application No. 9885 of 2009 are disposed off. ( 33 ) OFFICE is directed to keep copy of this order in each of these two appeals. ( 34 ) REQUEST for stay of this order is rejected. (SBJ) (Appeal rejected)