Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—The petitioner preferred a suit as per the provisions of Section 88, 188 and 92 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1954 seeking correction of entries and declaring the petitioner as khatedar-tenant. The petitioner also claimed for a permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Along with the suit, an application was also filed as per the provisions of Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act seeking temporary injunction but that came to be rejected on 13.7.2007. An appeal as per provisions of Section 225 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was also rejected on 8.8.2007. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 8.10.2007 dismissed the revision petition giving challenge to the orders passed by the original Court and the First Appellate Court. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defendants-respondents No. 1 and 2 both wives of late Shri Tulsi Ram went on `nata' in the life-time of Tulsi Ram himself and the present petitioner-Keshu Lal is admittedly the adopted son of late Shri Tulsi Ram, as such, the Trial Court should have granted temporary injunction, as prayed for. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the suit, a part of the land has been transferred to defendant-Phoolmali Samaj, thus, the apprehension regarding transfer of the land is well founded. 3. While controverting the facts and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent-defendants that the factum of adoption of the petitioner as the son of late Shri Tulsi Ram and also the fact about going on `nata' during the lifetime of Shri Tulsi Ram is highly disputed. As per the respondent-defendants, the petitioner is having no right in the land in question as he was never adopted by late Shri Tulsi Ram. 4. As per the respondent-defendants, the petitioner is having no right in the land in question as he was never adopted by late Shri Tulsi Ram. 4. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner attracted my attention towards the statements given by defendant-Smt. Heera Bai, stating therein as under: ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd rqylhjke th us dslqyky dks xksn j[kk Fkk mudk nkok Hkh ,l-Mh-vks- dksVZ esa py jgk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ,l-Mh-vks- dksVZ esa gekjs fo:) LVs yxk gqvk gS fd ge tehu dks ugha cspsaA ;g dguk lgh gS fd dslqyky tehu cspus ugha nsrk gS blh ckr dk >xM+k gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd dslqyky dks cspus ckcr ,rjkt gS vkSj dgrk gS fd dCtk esjk gS blfy, rqe tehu ugha cspksaxsA rqylhjke th 'kkar gq, rc lHkh fØ;kØe tkfr fjokt ds vuqlkj dslqyky us fd;s FksA** 5. I have considered the arguments advanced and also the documents annexed with the pleadings. 6. True it is, the defendants have disputed the factum of adoption of the petitioner as the son of late Shri Tulsi Ram but merely on that count it cannot be said that no prima facie case exists in his favour, especially looking to the statements given by Smt. Heera Bai, referred above. 7. It is also not disputed by the defendants that a part of the land has already been transferred to defendant-respondent No. 3- Phoolmali Samaj. All these facts requires a protection to the suit property, thus, the status quo as exists today is required to be maintained. 8. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The orders impugned 8.10.2007, 8.8.2007 and 30.7.2007 are hereby quashed. The application preferred under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1954 is allowed. The defendant-respondents are directed to maintain status quo as is existing today. The defendant-respondents No. 1 and 2 are restrained from further transferring, alienating or parting with the land in question by any means to any other person till disposal of the original suit No. 362/2001 pending consideration before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa, District Udaipur. 9. Expeditious proceedings of the suit is desirable looking to the facts of the case. The Trial Court is, thus, directed to decide the suit as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from today.