JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Order 43, Rule 1 read with Section 104 of CPC against the order impugned order dated 26.10.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur, whereby the appellant's application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for permanent injunction has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial Court while ignoring the significant aspect of the matter has arrived at a wrong and erroneous finding that the appellant/plaintiff is not the son of Ramdeen and the property in question has been recorded in the name of defendant No.2 after death of his father Ramdeen. The land in question has not been partitioned and still is a joint property. Therefore, the learned trial Court has committed error in rejecting the application for temporary injunction. 3. Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 26.10.2016, passed by the trial court. 4. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deeds dated 07.04.1994 and 22.07.2014 on the ground that except appellant-plaintiff and defendant No.2 there is no other legal representatives of Ramdeen son of Harjiram, after the death of Ramdeen. The land in question is recorded in Revenue record in the name of defendant No.2 whereas after death of Ramdeen along with defendant No.2 the name of appellant-plaintiff has also been recorded in the Revenue records. 5. The land in question is recorded in Revenue record in the name of defendant No.2 whereas after death of Ramdeen along with defendant No.2 the name of appellant-plaintiff has also been recorded in the Revenue records. 5. The learned trial Court while dealing with the prima facie has come to the conclusion that : ^^10- izkFkhZ us izkFkZuk&i= esa ;g dgha ugha crk;k gS fd jkenhu dh e`R;q dc gqbZA jktLo fjdkMZ vfHkys[k ij gS] ftlesa de ls de ;g izdV gksrk gS fd lEor~ 2015 vFkkZr lu~ 1958 esa mDr [kljk uEcj 12] 24 o 25 lkarokjke vizkFkhZ la[;k&2 ds uke ntZ gks pqds Fks] vFkkZr lu~ 1958 ls iwoZ jkenhu dh e`R;q gks pqdh FkhA jkenhu dh e`R;q vxj lu~ 1958 ls iwoZ gqbZ gS rks mldh e`R;q dks djhc 58 ;k 60 lky gksrs gS] tcfd lu~ 2010 esa tc nkok is'k fd;k x;k] rc Lo;a tkykjke us viuh vk;q 45 o"kZ gksuk crk;k gS] bl izdkj jkenhu dh e`R;q ds ckn tkykjke iSnk gqvk gSA gLrxr LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds ewy nkos esa izkFkhZ@oknh tkykjke ds c;ku ih0Mh0&1 dh gSfl;r ls fnukad 24-05-2016 dks gq;s gS] ftuesa tkykjke us viuh vk;q 50 o"kZ dh gksuk crk;h gS] ftlls Hkh Li"V gS fd tkykjke dk tUe jkenhu dh e`R;q ds yEcs le; ckn gqvk gSA vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk izkFkZuk&i= nkos ds fuLrkj.k rd fLFkfr ds ckjs esa gksrk gSA ewy okn esa izkFkhZ@oknh ds ih0Mh0&1 ds :i esa c;ku gks pqds gS] ftlus vius izfr ijh{k.k esa ;g crk;k gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd mldh tUe ls iwoZ ;g tehu lkaorkjke ds uke ntZ gks pqdh FkhA ftlls Li"V gS fd bl xokg ds tUe ds le; jkenhu dh e`R;q gks pqdh Fkh vkSj tehu lkaorkjke ds uke ntZ gks pqdh FkhA bl izdkj izFke n`"V~;k izkFkhZ] Lo0 jkenhu dk tkbZUnk iq= gks] ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS ,oa tkbZUnk iq= ugha gksus ls oknxzLr Hkwfe esa izkFkhZ dk dksbZ izFke n`"V~;k ekeyk Hkh cuuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA^^ 6. The plaintiff-applicant prima facie has not established that being son of deceased Ramdeen, he has right, interest in the property in question. 7. In view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. However, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit pending before it expeditiously. 8. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.