JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge while considering the matter observed as under:- "the parties would not alienate the property during pendency of the suit in view of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act." 2. Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge while considering the matter has observed that the status quo cannot be granted and simultaneously he has been restrained from alienating the property under the guise of the section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. He also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in N. Birendra Singh v. Priyokumar Singh, and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 2228 wherein Supreme Court observed as under:- "16. Before adverting to the other contentions raised in these appeals, we must, at the outset, observe that the Division Bench of the High Court committed a manifest error in making observations as against the learned Single Judge as contained in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment. We have noticed hereinbefore that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was found to be correct by the Division Bench. The appeals preferred by the State and the other respondents herein were dismissed. If the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was correct, in our opinion, there was no occasion for the Division Bench to issue certain directions in terms whereof the appellants herein were deprived of the benefit of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge indirectly, which could not have been done directly. If the Division Bench was of the opinion that in passing his order the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration certain aspects of the matter and, in particular, some orders which were relevant for determination of the issue, the Division Bench could have said so and dealt with the same appropriately. It did not." 4. Learned Single Judge himself states that status quo cannot be granted, therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has committed serious error in granting larger relief then status quo. Thus, the contention raised by the appellant is required to be accepted. 5. The observations made by the learned Single Judge regarding the parties would not alienate the property is required to be deleted. Thus, the contention raised by the appellant is required to be accepted. 5. The observations made by the learned Single Judge regarding the parties would not alienate the property is required to be deleted. The transfer, if any, will be subject to section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. With the above observations, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. 7. It is made clear that the other directions issued by the learned Single Judge is not interfered.