JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court found prima facie case in favour of the appellant and granted injunction against the respondents from transferring the suit property. 2.The suit was filed by the appellant seeking declaration of the sale deed as void and permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants based on the facts that the suit property belonged to her father Jamna @ Jamnadas and her brother Bheekharam, without partition of the property, has transferred the same to defendant No.1-Rakesh. Based on the said submissions, the cancellation of sale deed and injunction was sought against the defendants. 3. Alongwith the suit, an application seeking injunction against the respondents from transferring the suit property and maintaining status quo was also filed. 4. A reply to the application was filed by the defendants, wherein it was specifically indicated that the land comprised in 3 Khasras were mutated in name of plaintiff herself after death of Jamna @ Jamnadas and that she herself has transferred the said property received from Jamna @ Jamnadas, which aspect has not been disclosed in the suit. 5. Further submissions were made that transferee is a bonafide purchaser and, therefore, no injunction was granted against him. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that prima facie the plaintiff has a case as the transfer deed executed in favour of defendant No.1-Rakesh, does not indicate any partition between parties and only indicates that the property belongs to Bheekaram. However, the trial court found it appropriate to only injunct the transferee from further transferring the property. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court was not justified in merely granting an injunction against alienation. The facts of the case are such, wherein the trial court should have injuncted the respondents from raising construction in the suit property. Further submissions were made that if the construction has been raised during the pendency of the suit, the same would put the property beyond the appellant as the construction is being raised in the middle of the plot and the same thereafter cannot be bifurcated in two equal plots. Further submissions were made that if the construction has been raised during the pendency of the suit, the same would put the property beyond the appellant as the construction is being raised in the middle of the plot and the same thereafter cannot be bifurcated in two equal plots. It was prayed that the respondents have no right to raise construction, inasmuch as, the property has been transferred without partition and a third party cannot even enter the property without there being partition amongst the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant has not approached the court with clean hands, she has already received her share of the properties belonging to Jamna @ Jamnadas and the property in question was not self-acquired property of Jamna @ Jamnadas as even in hands of Jamna @ Jamnadas, it was in an ancestral property; Jamna @ Jamnadas had died in the year 1976 and at that point of time, the appellant had no right to get share in the said property. It was submitted that the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference as the transferee is a bonafide purchaser and have spent huge sum in the suit property and cannot be restrained from putting the property to use, which is already in his possession. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The trial court based on the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant has prima facie case in her favour and granted injunction against the respondents from further transferring the suit property. 11. The plea raised is that grant of injunction against alienation was not sufficient and the trial court should have ordered for maintaining status quo. Whether in a given case a order of status quo has to be passed or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, it cannot be laid down as a thumb rule that in every case, where a prima facie case is found in favour of the plaintiff, an injunction maintaining status quo has to be granted. 12. Whether in a given case a order of status quo has to be passed or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, it cannot be laid down as a thumb rule that in every case, where a prima facie case is found in favour of the plaintiff, an injunction maintaining status quo has to be granted. 12. As already noticed hereinbefore the case of the respondents has been that the appellant herself has alienated certain properties and other properties belonging to Jamna @ Jamnadas, her father, are even today standing in her name, the said aspect was not disclosed in the suit and once this fact has come on record, it is a matter of speculation as to whether at all once the plea raised by the appellant regarding nonpartition of the property is adjudicated by the trial court, the property in question would fall in the share of the appellant. 13. Irrespective of the above fact, even if the construction is raised during the pendency of the suit, the same would always be subject to the final outcome of the suit and, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any error in not granting status quo in favour of the appellant and / or not restrain the defendants from raising construction on the plot in question. 14. In view therefore, no case for interference is made out. There is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.