JUDGMENT 1. JUDGMENT 1. - In the present suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by the plaintiff-appellant-Jeevanram s/o Shri Prabhuram himself in favour of the defendant-Smt.Geeta Devi w/o Late Shri Sitaram, the learned trial court has rejected the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff-appellant, by the impugned order dated 05.10.2015 with the following observations:- 9- geus mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;kA i=koyh esa layXu nLrkost cspku gd gdwd [kkrsnkjh }kjk tho.kjke cgd xhrknsoh] tks fd bl izdj.k ds rgr dze'k% izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 gS] fnukafdr 9-5-2011 ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd ukxkSj rglhy ds xzke /koka dh nf{k.kh dkadM+ esa fLFkr [ksr [kljk uEcj 299 jdck 7 ch?kk 08 fcLok esa viuh tk;t t:jr lk: jdck 5 ch?kk mRrjh Hkkx ds gd gdwd Jherh xhrknsoh dks :i;s 50]000@& esa fodz; djus dk mYys[k gS rFkk mDr fodz;&i= fnukad 9-5-2011 dks mi iath;d] ukxkSj ds ;gka iathd`r Hkh djok;k x;k gS rFkk mDr fodz;&i= ds vk/kkj ij mDr [kljk 299 esa ls u;k [kljk uEcj 639@299 jdck 5 ch?kk dh [kkrsnkjh jktLo jsdMZ esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 xhrknsoh iRuh lhrkjke ds uke ls ukekarjdj.k Hkjk tk pqdk gSA bl LVst ij mDr rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij izkFkhZ dk dCtk gksA izkFkhZ }kjk mDr ukekarjdj.k dks fdlh jktLo U;k;ky; pSysat fd;k tks ,slk Hkh dksbZ nLrkost] gLrxr i=koyh esa miyC/k ugha gSA izdj.k esa fnukad 10-5-2011 dks fyf[kr oDr dk;Zokgh mDr dze esa fof/k Lokeh gksus ds dkj.k bl LVst ij vkosnd ds i{k esa iq"V ugha djrs gSaA 10- fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl)kUr gS fd izkFkhZ ftu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ fookn is'k djrk gS mudks lkfcr djs ijUrq izkFkhZ us ek= ,d fy[kki<+h] tks dfFkr rkSj ij Jherh xhrknsoh }kjk tho.kjke ds gd esa gksuk crk;k x;k gS] dks vk/kkj cukrs gq, ;g izkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;k gS] ftlesa ,d yk[k chl gtkj :i;s jksdM+h nsus o C;kt nks :i;s izfr lSdM+k ds fglkc ls gksus dk mYys[k gSA mDr fy[kki<+h ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ Li"V dFku djrk gS rFkk mlesa of.kZr jkf'k o mldh iq'r ij vafdr jkf'k rd ds ckjs esa dFku djrk gS rFkk mldks lgh gksuk tkfgj djrk gS ijUrq dfFkr cspkuukek tks jftLVMZ djok;k x;k gS rFkk mDr cspkuukek ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds uke jktLo jsdMZ esa mDr fookfnr Hkwfe uke ntZ gksdj ukekarjdj.k [kksyk x;k gS] mldks izkFkhZ xyr rjhds ls djokuk dfFkr djrk gS tks fd lgh izdV ugha gksrk gSA bl LVst ij mDr nLrkostkr ds voyksdu ls fookfnr Hkwfe ij izkFkhZ dkfct gks ,slk Hkh izdV ugha gksrk gSA tcfd vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 mDr Hkwfe dh [kjhnnkj gksdj dkfct dk'r gksuk izdV gksrh gSA blfy, mDr foospukuqlkj izFke n`"V;k ekeys dk fcUnq izkFkhZ ds i{k esa gksuk izdV ugha gksus ls izkFkhZ ds fo:) r; fd;k tkrk gSA 11- lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viw.khZ; {kfr&pwafd izFke n`"V;k ekeyk izkFkhZ ds i{k cuuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 tks fd fookfnr Hkwfe dzsrk gS rFkk mlds ikl mDr fookfnr Hkwfe dk jftLVMZ cspkuukek gksdj dkfct dk'r gksuk izdV gksrk gS] dks ;fn fookfnr Hkwfe esa n[ky] dk'r vkfn ls jksdk x;k rks izkFkhZ dh ctk; vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dks vlqfo/kk gksuk izdV gksrk gS rFkk mldks lizfrQy dz; dh xbZ tehu ls eg:e gksuk iM+sxk ftlls mDr vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dks viw.khZ; {kfr gksus dh laHkkouk ls Hkh badkj ugha fd;s tk ldrkA vr% mDr nksuksa fcUnq Hkh mDrkuqlkj izkFkhZ ds fo:) r; fd;s tkrs gSaA 12- pwafd izkFkhZ vius i{k esa izFke n`"V;k ekeyk] lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viw.khZ; {kfr ds fcUnqvksa dks lkfcr djus esa lQy ugha jgk gS blfy;s izkFkhZ dk ;g izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj fd;k tkuk leqfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vkns'k 13- vr% izkFkhZ tho.kjke iq= izHkqjke] tkfr&[kkrh] mez 60 o"kZ] fuoklh&/koka] rglhy&ukxkSj] ftyk&ukxkSj dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g izkFkZuk&i= v/khu vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 lifBr /kkjk 151 lh0ih0lh0 ckcr~ vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk fo:) vizkFkhZ Jherh xhrknsoh iRuh Lo0 lhrkjke] tkfr tkV] mez 60 o"kZ] fuoklh&/koka] rglhy&ukxkSj] ftyk&ukxkSj o mi iath;d] ukxkSj] ftyk&ukxkSj ,rn~}kjk [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA Sd/- vkj0Mh0 jksfgyk vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k 2 ukxkSj 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that a fraud was played by the defendant upon the plaintiff and though the plaintiff had only mortgaged his agricultural land measuring about 5 bigha in favour of the defendant, the defendant got the impugned sale deed by him, which deserves to be cancelled in the suit filed for this purpose, and therefore, by temporary injunction, the learned trial court ought to have directed the status quo to be maintained by the defendant, and also not to alienate the suit property. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court at this stage. The registered sale deed cannot be ignored just for askance and the facts averred by the appellant and the documents of different nature having been executed by him in favour of the defendant, are the questions of fact, which are yet to be determined during trial before the learned trial court, whether it was a case of mortgage or actual sale, whether part of the amount has been refunded back, are the questions of facts to be determined by the learned trial court. It is needless to say any further that alienation of the suit property made by the purchaser defendant-Smt. Geeta Devi w/o late Shri Sitaram will remain subject to the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and therefore, the impugned order adequately protects the rights of the present plaintiff-appellant, and thus, the rejection of the temporary injunction application by the learned trial court does not require any interference by this Court at this stage, and the present misc. appeal is thus, found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the present misc. appeal of the plaintiff-appellant is dismissed. No costs. Copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties as well as the learned court below forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******