JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metro on the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. 2. The learned trial Court allowing the application for temporary injunction of the plaintiff has restrained the defendants not to further alienate the suit property nor to hand over the possession of the same during the pendency of the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff - appellant Mr. J.R. Patel submitted that even while finding prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff without contradicting the factum of plaintiff's possession over the suit property, the learned trial Court in para 6 while finding of balance of convenience and irreparable loss has held that the defendant No.2 and 4 were not in possession of the suit property and therefore, the application for temporary injunction only to the extent of alienation and not to further hand over possession has been granted. He further urged that in the counter-claim filed by the defendants, they had admitted that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and they had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. in this regard and therefore, it was wrong on the part of the learned trial Court to find in para 6 that the defendants no.2 to 4 were in possession of the suit property. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the defendants - respondents submitted that under two agreements to sell executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants No.2 and 4 along with power of attorney executed by the plaintiff,which documents were signed by her husband Jitendra Mehta also as a witness, there is clear stipulation of possession of suit property having been handed over to the defendants and on the basis of power of attorney executed in their favour, they have executed registered sale-deed in favour of the defendant No.1 Smt. Nirmala Chopra and defendant No.3 Smt. Shanti Devi respectively, cancellation of which was sought in the present suit filed by the plaintiff. He submitted that the findings in para 6 of the impugned order cannot be said to be findings contrary to the aspect of prima facie case and the temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff meets ends of justice and since the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, therefore, the restraint against the present defendants not to further alienate the suit property and not to further hand-over the possession to any 3rd party adequately protects the rights of the plaintiff and consequently, the present appeal of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsels and after going through the reasons given in the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order adequately protects the right of the plaintiff and is not required to be interfered with or modified in the present appeal. It is not incumbent upon the learned trial Court to give positive findings on the possession while deciding the application for temporary injunction and to this Court, it does not appear that any observation made in para 6 of the impugned order is contrary to the findings of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and in the suit for cancellation of sale-deed filed by the plaintiff, the nature of temporary injunction granted by the learned court below adequately protects the right of the plaintiff and the temporary injunction granted against the defendants cannot be said to be not deciding the application for temporary injunction properly and no interference in called for in the impugned order in the present appeal. 6. The present appeal being found to be devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******