JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2016 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, in Civil Suit No.39-A/2016, whereby the trial Court has issued temporary injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of CPC in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff, this miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 rule 1 of CPC has been preferred by appellants/defendants. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale dated 10.8.2015 of disputed land as described in para 1 of the plaint situated in Village Kanheradev alleged to have been executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of CPC before the trial Court for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants to alienate the disputed property. 3. In their reply, the appellants/defendants have denied averments of plaint and pleaded that actually the plaintiff had advanced a loan of Rs.12 lacs and fraudulently obtained the signature of defendants on certain papers and thereafter prepared a forged agreement to sale of disputed land. The defendants have returned the loan amount by cheque to the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff has no right or title over the disputed land. The alleged agreement to sale is not registered and not duly stamped, therefore, it cannot be considered for any purpose. Thus, the prayer for temporary injunction is liable to be rejected. 4. Learned trial Court by passing the impugned order, issued a temporary injunction against the appellants/defendants and restrained them to alienate the disputed property to the extent of their shares. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged agreement to sale is not registered and not duly stamped, therefore, it cannot be looked into for any purpose. This agreement is forged and fabricated document. it can be considered as security of loan transaction. The plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land. Defendants have no right or title on it. Therefore, no irreparable loss shall cause to them, if the property is alienated. The trial Court has illegally issued temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. This agreement is forged and fabricated document. it can be considered as security of loan transaction. The plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land. Defendants have no right or title on it. Therefore, no irreparable loss shall cause to them, if the property is alienated. The trial Court has illegally issued temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws :- (i) Narbada Prasad Agrawal v. Tarun Bhawaskar [ILR (2009) MP 1255], (ii) Girish Pateria and others v. N.K. Pateria and others [ILR (2010)MP 2165], (iii) Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd and others [2012(4) MPLJ 17], (iv) Devendra Kumar Mittal v. Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun (Utt. H.C.) [2011(113) RD 192]. 6. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff that the defendants have entered into agreement to sale of disputed land and received advance of Rs.12 lacs. Now they are avoiding to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff. This document is not required to be registered and admissible in evidence as per proviso of section 49 of Registration Act. The trial Court after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case granted temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff. There is no illegality in impugned order. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. On consideration of rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the documents annexed to the petition, it prima facie appears that the defendants have executed an agreement to sale of the disputed property for the sale consideration of Rs.6,21,000,00/- and paid Rs.12 lacs as advance. The defendants have admitted that they have received Rs.12 lacs from the plaintiff. There is signature of defendants on the agreement. Whether the agreement was executed in security of loan and whether the signatures of defendants have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is to be considered and decided only after recording of evidence on merits. The effect of return of Rs.12 lacs by cheque to plaintiff is also to be considered at final disposal of case. 8. At present, trial Court has rightly held prima facie that the defendants have executed the agreement to sale of the disputed property in favour of plaintiff. Since there is no delivery of possession, therefore, this document needs no registration. 8. At present, trial Court has rightly held prima facie that the defendants have executed the agreement to sale of the disputed property in favour of plaintiff. Since there is no delivery of possession, therefore, this document needs no registration. Whether the agreement is duly stamped or not or required to be impounded can be considered by the trial Court later on at appropriate stage during hearing of the case. If the disputed property is alienated or third party interest is created on it, then it will give rise the multiplicity of litigation. 9. In the case law Narbada Prasad Agrawal (supra), the agreement to sale was executed on the plain paper and it was tendered in evidence where it is held that unless the stamp duty is paid on the instrument it cannot be admitted for any purposes. In the case law Girish Pateria and others (supra), the Court has considered the agreement to sale with delivery of possession by one co-owner (who later died) in favour of plaintiff. The suit was filed after the death of said co-owner. Therefore, in peculiar facts of the case, the Court has refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of purchaser. The case law Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), relates to business transaction. This is not the case where effect of agreement to sale was under dispute. In the case law Devendra Kumar Mittal (supra), it is held that the agreement to sale does not create any right or interest on the disputed property. 10. Whereas, the facts of present case is different. Present agreement to sale is executed without delivery of possession. The signature on the agreement and payment of Rs.12 lacs are also not denied. Therefore, aforesaid case laws are not applicable in present dispute. 11. To maintain status quo and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial Court has rightly issued the temporary injunction against the defendants in exercise of its discretion. There is no illegality appears in the impugned order. Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed.