JUDGMENT : Krushna Ram Mohapatra, J. 1. Order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 457 of 2007 arising out of C.S. No. 565 of 2007 rejecting an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff-appellant is under challenge in this appeal. 2. Shorn of details, C.S. No. 565 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that the registered deed of cancellation dated 31.3.1982, registered Power of Attorney dated 20.11.2002 and registered sale deed Nos. 334 and 335 dated 5.2.2003 are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff further prayed for a declaration that the registered gift deed dated 19.3.1982 has been validly executed and registered gift deed Nos. 809 and 810 dated 15.4.1982 are fraudulently created. He also prayed for other consequential reliefs like permanent, prohibitory and mandatory injunction. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that Ketaki Dei, the mother-in-law of the plaintiff, out of love and affection had executed a registered gift deed No. 583 dated 19.3.1982 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ac. 0.625 decimals of land, which was her (Ketaki's) self-acquired property. Said Ketaki also delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant No. 1, who is none other than the brother-in-law (Diara) of the plaintiff, by practicing fraud created a registered deed of revocation of the aforesaid gift deed on 31.3.1982 without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, by misrepresentation, said defendant No. 2 took signatures of the plaintiff, her husband and father-in-law and created two registered gift deeds purportedly executed by Ketaki vide registered gift deed No. 809 dated 15.4.1982 donating Ac. 0.224 decimals of land in his favour and registered gift deed No. 810 dated 15.4.1982 donating Ac. 0.401 decimals of land in favour of the plaintiff, which was the subject matter of the gift deed dated 19.3.1982. After obtaining the Gift Deed No. 809 dated 15.4.1982, the defendant No. 1 executed a registered Power of Attorney on 20.4.2002 in favour of defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 by virtue of the said Power of Attorney executed two registered sale deeds i.e. RSD No. 334 dated 5.2.2003 for an area of Ac. 0.112 decimals in favour of defendant No. 3 and RSD No. 335 dated 5.2.2003 for an area of Ac. The defendant No. 2 by virtue of the said Power of Attorney executed two registered sale deeds i.e. RSD No. 334 dated 5.2.2003 for an area of Ac. 0.112 decimals in favour of defendant No. 3 and RSD No. 335 dated 5.2.2003 for an area of Ac. 0.112 decimals of land in favour of defendant No. 4. After the death of Ketaki on 21.7.1991 and her husband (father-in-law of the plaintiff) late Uchhab Paikray on 24.3.1993, the defendant No. 1 created disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the land in question and building standing thereon. Thus, the plaintiff filed C.S. No. 466 of 2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 386 of 2006 in the said suit for temporary injunction and an order of status quo was passed therein. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.3.2007, the said order of status quo was vacated for which FAO No. 66 of 2007 has been filed, which is pending consideration. However, due to alienation of the suit land in favour of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4, they created disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and building standing thereon for which the present suit has been filed for the aforesaid reliefs. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 457 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. praying, inter alia, to restrain the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein) from entering upon the suit land or any part thereof and from alienating the suit property. The defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein) filed their objections jointly denying the allegations made in the plaint as well as in the interim application. They contended that the suit property was purchased by Ketaki vide RSD No. 2834 dated 19.12.1975. Subsequently, said Ketaki executed a registered Gift Deed No. 809 dated 15.4.1982 for an area of Ac. 0.224 decimals out of Ac. 0.625 decimals from Khata No. 59 in favour of defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) as per family settlement. Since the defendant No. 1 was serving and residing out of the State, he executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 2 to look after the said property. 0.224 decimals out of Ac. 0.625 decimals from Khata No. 59 in favour of defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) as per family settlement. Since the defendant No. 1 was serving and residing out of the State, he executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 2 to look after the said property. Accordingly, the defendant No. 2 executed two sale deeds i.e. registered sale deed Nos. 334 and 335 dated 5.2.2003 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 for an area of Ac. 0.112 decimals each respectively. Since the date of purchase, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are in peaceful possession of the land, they have purchased. They further contended that taking advantage of long absence of defendant No. 2, the plaintiff cunningly managed to obtain a gift deed in respect of the entire area of Ac. 0.625 decimals from the recorded owner Ketaki vide registered gift deed dated 19.3.1982. When the defendant No. 1 came to know about the same, he immediately on 31.3.1982 on consent of the plaintiff got the said gift deed cancelled by Ketaki. Thereafter, on 15.4.1982, the recorded owner, namely, Ketaki, executed two separate registered gift deeds in favour of defendant No. 1 for an area of Ac. 0.224 decimals and in favour of the plaintiff for an area of Ac. 0.401 decimals from out of the suit land. Both the gift deeds were executed with the knowledge of the plaintiff and she had put her hand in it. Thus, they claim that the registered sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are valid and they have acquired valid right, title, interest and possession by virtue of the sale deeds. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the interim application. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties dismissed the interim application on 15.7.2011, which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that Registered Gift Deed No. 583 dated 19.3.1982 executed by the recorded tenant, namely, Ketaki Dei, in respect of Ac. 0.625 decimals is valid one and by virtue of the same, the plaintiff has acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and the building standing thereon. 5. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that Registered Gift Deed No. 583 dated 19.3.1982 executed by the recorded tenant, namely, Ketaki Dei, in respect of Ac. 0.625 decimals is valid one and by virtue of the same, the plaintiff has acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and the building standing thereon. Since the date of execution of the gift deed, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit land and the house standing thereon to exclusion of all others. The donor had no authority to cancel the gift deed made in her favour unilaterally without her (plaintiff's) written consent as required under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Thus, the deed of cancellation dated 31.3.1982 by Ketaki without her consent is invalid and void. Consequently, the gift deeds purportedly executed on 19.4.1982 are void and do not confer any title on the Donee in respect of the suit land. Accordingly, the Power of Attorney executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is also void and the sale deeds in pursuance to the Power of Attorney have no sanctity in the eye of law being invalid. The plaintiff being in possession over the suit land having right, title and interest has a prima facie case in her favour and she would suffer irreparable loss, if she is not protected under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. by an order of temporary injunction. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff as she is the rightful owner over the possession of the suit land. Mr. Dash further contended that the learned Civil Judge without taking into consideration the provisions of law as enumerated under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1988 has committed a grave error of law and facts. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the interim application. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision in the case of Garagaboyina Radhakrishna and another v. District Registrar, Visakhapatnam and others, reported in AIR 2012 (AP) 190 , wherein in paragraph-7 it has been held as follows: "7. When a gift deed is executed, it is almost a unilateral transaction. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision in the case of Garagaboyina Radhakrishna and another v. District Registrar, Visakhapatnam and others, reported in AIR 2012 (AP) 190 , wherein in paragraph-7 it has been held as follows: "7. When a gift deed is executed, it is almost a unilateral transaction. It is devoid of any consideration and the donor chooses to transfer his title in favour of the donee out of love and affection. The participation of the donee is not at all contemplated, till the deed is executed. The donor is entitled to cancel the gift deed, as long as the gift is not acceptable, by the donee. Law does not stipulate any uniform pattern of acceptance of gift. It can be in the form of accepting possession of the property soon after the execution of the gift deed, or acknowledgement, by the donor, of the existing possession of the donee. Once the gift is accepted, the right of the donor to unilaterally cancel the gift deed ceases to exist." Mr. Dash also relied upon a decision in the case of Kamalakanta Mohapatra and others v. Pratap Chandra Mohapatra and others, 2009 (Supp.II) OLR 902 wherein this Court held that Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act creates an embargo and it is clear that a deed of gift once executed and registered cannot be revoked, unless the mandatory requirements of the said section are fulfilled. Thus, a deed of gift after its execution and acceptance can only be suspended or revoked on participation of both the parties and on the conditions on which a contract can be rescinded (save want or failure of consideration). In such a case, the intervention of the competent Court of law is essential. 6. Mr. Soumya Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, refuting the contentions raised by Mr. Dash argued that the registered gift deed executed by Ketaki was obtained by the plaintiff taking advantage of the absence of defendant No. 1. When the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of defendant No. 1, he immediately took steps for cancellation of the said gift deed, which was done vide registered sale deed No. 699 dated 31.3.1982. The said fact is in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Subsequently, said Ketaki executed two registered gift deeds i.e. registered gift deed No. 809 donating Ac. When the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of defendant No. 1, he immediately took steps for cancellation of the said gift deed, which was done vide registered sale deed No. 699 dated 31.3.1982. The said fact is in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Subsequently, said Ketaki executed two registered gift deeds i.e. registered gift deed No. 809 donating Ac. 0.224 decimals of land in favour of defendant No. 1 (her son) and registered gift deed No. 810 dated 15.4.1982 for an extent of Ac. 0.401 decimals in favour of the plaintiff (her daughter-in-law) and delivered possession thereof. By virtue of the Power of Attorney executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, the land donated to the defendant No. 1 was sold to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 by different registered sale deeds. Thus, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have absolute right, title, interest and possession over Ac. 0.224 decimals of land out of Ac. 0.625 decimals of land. The registered gift deeds dated 15.4.1982 were executed with the knowledge of the plaintiff and she is the signatory to the same. Thus, it cannot be said that the deed of cancellation dated 31.3.1982 was executed without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. As such, the plea taken by the plaintiff is a concocted one. Moreover, a similar prayer made by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 466 of 2002 was refused by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar for which FAO No. 66 of 2007 has been filed which is pending consideration. Mr. Mishra further contended that by virtue of the subsequent gift deeds dated 15.4.1982, the plaintiff has been donated with more extent of land than the defendant No. 1. Thus, the plaintiff has no prima facie case and she would not suffer any irreparable loss or injury, if the order of injunction is not granted. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge considering the matter from its proper perspective has rightly rejected the petition which needs no interference by this Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. This Court while issuing notice on the question of admission, as an interim measure, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that date over the disputed property by order dated 22.9.2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 616 of 2011. The said order is in force till today. 8. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. This Court while issuing notice on the question of admission, as an interim measure, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that date over the disputed property by order dated 22.9.2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 616 of 2011. The said order is in force till today. 8. In order to consider the rival contentions of the parties, it is profitable to look into the provisions in Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reads as follows: "126. When gift may be suspended or revoked The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be. A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice. Illustrations (a) A gives a field to B, reserving to himself, with B's assent, the right to take back the field in case B and his descendants die before A. B dies without descendants in A's lifetime. A may take back the field. (b) A gives a lakh of rupees to B, reserving to himself, with B's assent, the right to take back at pleasure Rs. 10,000 out of the lakh. The gift holds goods as to Rs. 90,000, but is void as to Rs. 10,000, which continue to belong to A." 9. On close scrutiny of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 makes it clear that a gift can be suspended or revoked on satisfaction of certain conditions, which may be broadly described as under: "Firstly, when the donor and donee agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the Will of the donor, a gift shall be suspended or revoked. Secondly, a gift can also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which if it was a contract, it might be rescinded, but when the parties to the gift deed agree that the gift shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere Will of the donor, the said gift is void wholly or in part as the case may be. The language of the provision makes the conditions mandatory. Illustration of Section 126 of the Act makes the provisions abundantly clear." 10. It appears from the above that a gift once executed cannot be cancelled at the mere wish of the donor. However, a gift can be suspended or revoked at the happening of an incident on the agreement of the donor and donee. However, a clause in the gift deed to the effect that such gift can be suspended or revoked either in whole or in part at the mere wish/will of the donor makes the said deed of gift void either in whole or in part as the case may be. 11. From the aforesaid analysis of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is clear that a gift once accepted cannot be cancelled unilaterally by the donor without written consent of the donee. In the instant case, registered deed of cancellation dated 31.3.1982 executed by donor, namely, Ketaki, a copy of which is annexed to the appeal memo, does not disclose the consent or agreement of the plaintiff nor bear her signature on the same. Hence, it appears to be an invalid one. Thus, subsequent acts of the parties pursuant to the deed of cancellation dated 31.3.1982 cannot be held to be valid and binding on the plaintiff. True it is that the plaintiff is a signatory to the registered gift deed No. 809 dated 15.4.1982 executed by Ketaki in favour of defendant No. 1 but the plaintiff has denied to have given any such consent and pleaded that her signatures were obtained fraudulently. It is a matter of trial and no opinion can be given on the same at this stage. 12. It is a matter of trial and no opinion can be given on the same at this stage. 12. Thus, the appellant has a prima facie case in her favour and the balance of convenience lies in her favour as she has acquired valuable right and possession over the suit land by virtue of the Registered Gift Deed No. 583 dated 19.3.1982. The plaintiff-appellant contended that a residential building standing over the suit land and she is in possession over the same. Though the defendants deny the possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit land but never denied the existence of a building over it. 13. In view of the observation made above, there is every likelihood of dispossession of the plaintiff-appellant from the suit house, if her possession is not protected. Nevertheless, this Court while issuing notice on the question of admission of the appeal vide order dated 22.9.2011 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant would suffer irreparable loss, if an order of injunction is not granted. 14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order and direct the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule land till disposal of the suit. It is further directed that to avoid further complicacy in the matter, the learned Civil Judge shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit early and the parties to the suit are directed to co-operate with the Court for early disposal of the suit.