ORDER : This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, being aggrieved the order dated 2-3-2009, passed by 8th Additional District Judge (Mr. R. P. Gupta), Indore, rejecting an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction with respect to agricultural land of Survey No. 132/1 area 0.178 hectare and Survey No. 133/2 area 1.176 hectare, situated at village Mangaliya Sadak, Tahsil Sanwer, District Indore. It is said that the plaintiff is the real owner of the suit land. The brother of the plaintiff was very much close with defendant No. 1 Pramod Gupta, however, to have some loan against the said land, some blank papers were signed by the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 executed an unregistered power of attorney on those papers and on the basis of such power of attorney, he executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2 Hemant Sharma. Later on, defendant No. 2 sold the said property to defendants No. 3 and 4 Smt. Seema Mishra and Smt. Jyoti Maheshwari respectively. Thereafter, a suit was filed seeking declaration and permanent injunction along with the application of temporary injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, the property has further been sold in favour of defendant No. 6 by defendants No. 3 and 4 on 28-4-2006. The application for temporary injunction filed by plaintiff/appellant was rejected on the pretext that the appellant is not having any prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, therefore she is not entitled to get any temporary injunction against alienation or to protect her possession. On execution of the sale-deed dated 28-4-2006 during pendency of the suit, the possession was delivered to defendant No. 6 on account of not granting the temporary injunction, however, an application for amendment has also been filed before the trial Court seeking the relief of restoration of possession, which is pending. 3. After going through the order impugned passed by the trial Court it appears that, the injunction has been refused by the trial Court solely on the basis that the power of attorney was executed long back and, on the basis of such power of attorney, defendant No. 1 has executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2. 3. After going through the order impugned passed by the trial Court it appears that, the injunction has been refused by the trial Court solely on the basis that the power of attorney was executed long back and, on the basis of such power of attorney, defendant No. 1 has executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2. Thereafter, another sale-deed was executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that plaintiff was unaware of having some power of attorney in favour of defendant No. 2. Now the property has been sold to defendant No. 6 during pendency. In the circumstances, the delay defeats equity, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is having a prima facie case in her favour. It is further said that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss do not lie in her favour, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to get temporary injunction in the facts and circumstances of the case, even to restrain the defendants from alienation. 4. Shri Mehta, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff strenuously urged that the execution of power of attorney was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff. The said power of attorney is the unregistered document, which is null and void. At this stage, it is to be seen that the property which belongs to the plaintiff and if transferred on the basis of alleged power of attorney executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 and to other defendants who are claiming their right, however, it is to be decided whether such power of attorney is a valid document or not. If it is questioned by raising a legitimate plea and its determination is pending, can the defendants may derive their title on the basis of those alleged power of attorney by virtue of sale-deed executed resting upon power of attorney. However, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is not having a prima facie case. It is further said that the transfer of the suit land in the name of different persons have created the multiplicity of the proceedings. In fact this suit has been undisputedly filed on 14-3-2006, and thereafter a sale deed has been executed in favour of defendant No. 6. It is further said that the transfer of the suit land in the name of different persons have created the multiplicity of the proceedings. In fact this suit has been undisputedly filed on 14-3-2006, and thereafter a sale deed has been executed in favour of defendant No. 6. In such circumstances, it is apparent that the defendants are continuing to alienate the said property, which creates multiplicity. Therefore, the refusal of the injunction to restrain the defendants from alienation is unsustainable and is against the recent judgment of the Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass, reported in 2005(1) MPLJ (SC) 447 = AIR 2005 SC 104 and Mien Educational Trust vs. Sourendra Kumar Roy and others, reported in (2010) I SCC 379. In view of the said submission, it is urged that the rejection of the application for temporary injunction as directed by trial Court is unsustainable in law. 5. On the other hand, Shri Nilesh Sharma, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that the plaintiff herself has signed the power of attorney and on the basis of the said power of attorney, he executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2. If on the basis of the said power of attorney, the sale-deed got executed, then valid title has been acquired by defendant No. 2 who in his turn, executed the sale-deed in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 with respect to the suit land. Later on, the said property was transferred to defendant No. 6. It is said that the plaintiff has not challenged any of the sale-deed as executed by defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 and in favour of other defendants. However, at this juncture, he is not having a prima facie case and the Court has not committed any error in recording such findings. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly refused to pass the order on application under Order 39, Rules 1, 2 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff. 6. Shri Vaibhav Jain, counsel appearing on behalf of defendants No. 3 and 4 submits that now they have sold the property to defendant No. 6 on 28-4-2006, purchased by them, from defendants No. 2, 3 and 4. 6. Shri Vaibhav Jain, counsel appearing on behalf of defendants No. 3 and 4 submits that now they have sold the property to defendant No. 6 on 28-4-2006, purchased by them, from defendants No. 2, 3 and 4. In such circumstances, at this, stage, he is not much more interested, but in any case the plaintiff is not having aprimafacie case in view of the findings as recorded by the trial Court. It is contended by him that delay defeats equity and it defeats the right accrued by the person in property. In the present case, on the basis of power of attorney of the plaintiff in favour defendant No. 2, a sale-deed was executed in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 and in turn, sold it to defendant No. 6 validly acquiring their title. During such long time of more than three years, no action has been taken and their names has been mutated in the revenue record. However, it cannot be said that the sale-deed executed in favour of defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 or in their favour was a valid document on the basis of power of attorney. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in refusing the injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. 7. Shri Rathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant No. 6 contends that he has purchased the land after making the payment of consideration to defendants No. 3 and 4 and because of the escalation of prices in these days, however, to fetch more money, the plaintiff has filed a suit. It is further contended that in view of the finding recorded by the trial Court, the plaintiff is not having a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, in such circumstances, application for temporary injunction has rightly been refused by the trial Court. In view of the said submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the appeal filed by plaintiff may be dismissed. 8. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the findings as recorded by the trial Court and the pleadings of the present case, it is apparent that the suit land is an agricultural land of Survey Nos. 132/1 and 133/2 of area 1.354 hectares. The said land belongs to the plaintiff Smt. Sushma Soni. 8. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the findings as recorded by the trial Court and the pleadings of the present case, it is apparent that the suit land is an agricultural land of Survey Nos. 132/1 and 133/2 of area 1.354 hectares. The said land belongs to the plaintiff Smt. Sushma Soni. As per the plaint allegation, it is apparent that the brother of plaintiff was very good friend of defendant No. 2. For the purpose of advancing some loan and to protect some land in some Scheme, he has obtained signatures in the documents including stamp papers. Later on, it was found that on the basis of such signatures, which was based on misrepresentation, the power of attorney was executed in his favour to transfer the said suit land. On the basis of such power of attorney, he has executed sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2, thereafter to defendants No. 3 and 4. When a suit has been filed on 14-3-2006 and notices were issued and prior to service of those notices, further alienation in favour of defendant No. 6 has been made by defendants No. 3 and 4. Thus, it is apparent that the suit land which is the agriculture land belong to Smt. Sushma Soni (Plaintiff). Whether the power of attorney is not the valid power of attorney, executed in favour of defendant No. 2 and it is for determination to the trial Court, however, transfer of rights and title to defendant No. 3 Smt. Seema Mishra and defendant No. 4 Smt. Jyoti Maheshwari, cannot possess to them, while the original holder of the land is plaintiff. In such circumstances, until and unless it is found that the power of attorney is valid, right cannot be transferred over disputed land on the basis of such power of attorney. The alienation of the suit property creates multiplicity of the proceedings which finds support from the fact that during pendency of civil suit, alienation in favour of defendant No. 6 has already been done on 28-4-2006. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that further alienation must be restrained to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The alienation of the suit property creates multiplicity of the proceedings which finds support from the fact that during pendency of civil suit, alienation in favour of defendant No. 6 has already been done on 28-4-2006. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that further alienation must be restrained to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot and Julien Educational Trust (supra), the application filed by plaintiff seeking temporary injunction so far as alienation part is concerned, deserves to be granted. In view of the aforesaid, the finding as recorded by the trial Court is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The application for temporary injunction with respect to suit land bearing Survey Nos. 132/1 and 133/2 total area of 1.354 is granted. The respondents No. 1 to 6 are directed not to alienate the suit property during pendency of the proceedings or not to create any third party right or multiplicity of the proceedings. The trial Court is further directed to decide the suit as early as possible within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Appeal allowed.