JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. ADMIT. Mr. Sandeep Limbani, learned advocate waives service of admission on behalf of the respondent. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 3. A challenge in this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (sic-1908) (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), is against an order dated 24.08.2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dhrangadhra below application Exh.5 preferred by the original plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code in Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2016, by which, learned Trial Court has allowed the application preferred by the original plaintiff and restrained the original defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the original plaintiff towards the suit land bearing Survey No. 165/14 admeasuring 13 acres 00 gunthas, situated in the sim of village: Manekvada, Taluka: Harvad, District: Surendranagar. 4. The case put forward by the original plaintiff is as under: "4.1 That the agricultural land in dispute was granted to one Mohanbhai Motibhai Koli for carrying out agricultural activities as restricted tenant. The said land was granted to said Mohanbhai Koli by Deputy Collector, Dhrangadhra vide order dated 20.10.1968. Subsequent to the death of said Mohanbhai, name of his legal heirs namely Shamuben widow of Mohanbhai, Bhalabhai and Laljibhai were mutated in the revenue record. 4.2 It is the case of the original plaintiff that those three persons executed General Power of Attorney with regard to the disputed land in favour of Mr. Mansukhlal Savjibhai Patel, resident of village: Manekvada and the said Mansukhlal was granted authority to deal with the land in question. It is also the case of the plaintiff that on the same day, other two documents, namely, Agreement to sell as well as Possession receipt were executed by all the three persons. By the said Agreement to sell, price of the land was fixed at Rs. 50,000/- which was paid, against which, possession of the property was handed over to the agreement holder, namely, Chetnaben, who is daughter-in-law of the said power of attorney Mr. Mansukhlal Patel. 4.3 It is the case of the plaintiff that order of grant of land for agricultural purpose was cancelled by the State of Gujarat pursuant to breach of conditions of the order. Mansukhlal Patel. 4.3 It is the case of the plaintiff that order of grant of land for agricultural purpose was cancelled by the State of Gujarat pursuant to breach of conditions of the order. The matter was persuaded by the said Mansukhlal before various authorities as power of attorney holder and ultimately the land was re-granted by revenue department vide order dated 20.06.2007. Pursuant to the said order, name of Bhalabhai Mohanbhai was entered into the revenue record. The land was treated as new tenure land. Power of Attorney Holder Mansukhlal intended to use the land for some other purpose. Hence, the land was required to be converted into old tenure land and, therefore, he filed an application before Competent Authority. The permission was granted by the competent authority vide order dated 03.06.2016 and the land was converted into old tenure land. 4.4 It is the case of the plaintiff that after completion of all the procedure i.e. up to converting the land from new tenure to old tenure, defendant No. 1 Bhalabhai Mohanbhai executed a sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 and transferred the said property on behalf of all the owners including his mother and brother, who were co-owners of the property. The sale deed was executed on 10.05.2016 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8. 4.5 It is the case of the plaintiff that power of attorney holder namely Mansukhbhai Patel executed a sale deed in favour of the original plaintiff on 07.04.2016 in view of the power of attorney given to him by all the owners. The said sale deed was not registered on the ground that Bhalabhai has raised objections as he had published a Notice in the newspaper on 31.08.2015 for cancellation of the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Mansukhlal Patel. 4.6 It is the case of the plaintiff that when the original defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff Chetnaben, who was in possession of the property pursuant to the Agreement to sell executed by her father-in-law Mansukhlal Patel and having possession receipt, filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2016 before learned Principal Civil Judge, Dhrangadhra and prayed for several reliefs against the said Bhalabhai, his family members and purchasers. 4.7 The plaintiff also filed an application Exh.5 and requested that the defendants may be restrained from disturbing the possession of the property, which the plaintiff is having since year 1999 and the documents were executed and notarized before the Notary. In response to the same, the defendants appeared and filed written statement and reply to the suit as well as to the injunction application and produced relevant documents in support of their say." Learned Trial Court after considering the documentary evidence, report of Court Commissioner and several orders passed by different authorities allowed the application Exh-5 and granted relief, as stated hereinabove. Hence, this Appeal from Order. 5.1 Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Gaurav Chudasama, learned advocate appearing for the appellants- original defendants has vehemently submitted that the suit, which has been filed by the plaintiff suffers from delay and latches as she is claiming specific performance of so called Agreement to sell executed on 27.09.1999, by which, the power of attorney was granted by defendant No. 1, his brother and mother since an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to him for treatment of his father, who met with an accident at the relevant time. He would submit that at no point of time, name of either plaintiff or power of attorney holder has ever appeared in any of the proceedings with regard to the land in question or showing possession of the property in question. The documents, which have been relied upon by the plaintiff, are three documents, namely, Power of attorney, Agreement to sell and possession receipt. He would submit that power of attorney, which was executed in favour of Mansukhlal Patel does not say anything about the possession of the property, which alleged to have been given to the plaintiff, who is daughter-in-law of Mansukhlal Patel. He would submit that a Public Notice was issued by the defendant No. 1 on 31.08.2015 in the newspaper, by which, power of attorney granted in favour of Mansukhlal Patel was declared as cancelled. In response to the said Notice, neither Mansukhlal nor plaintiff Chetnaben raised any objections. After the Public Notice was issued and objections have not been raised, Mansukhlal Patel (POA) sold the land to his daughter-in-law by sale deed dated 07.04.2016, which raises doubt about the conduct of plaintiff as well as power of attorney holder Mr. Mansukhlal Patel. In response to the said Notice, neither Mansukhlal nor plaintiff Chetnaben raised any objections. After the Public Notice was issued and objections have not been raised, Mansukhlal Patel (POA) sold the land to his daughter-in-law by sale deed dated 07.04.2016, which raises doubt about the conduct of plaintiff as well as power of attorney holder Mr. Mansukhlal Patel. 5.2 He would submit that subsequent to re-grant of the land by the Government, original defendant No. 1 became owner of the property and accordingly his name was mutated in the revenue record. He would submit that name was mutated immediately after the order of re-grant was passed in the year 2007. Neither the plaintiff nor power of attorney holder Mansukhlal nor family members of Bhalabhai raised any objection about the name of Bhalabhai having been mutated. The land continued in the name of the appellant, which was ultimately converted into the old tenure land. Since the restrictions were removed, Bhalabhai sold the property to defendant Nos. 5 to 8 by executing registered sale deed on 10.05.2016. Accordingly entry No. 1027 were made on 12.05.2016 showing the transfer of property in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 and their names have been mutated in the revenue record. 5.3 By taking me through the sale deed, which has been executed by power of attorney holder Mr. Mansukhlal in favour of his daughter-in-law, he would submit that the said document has been executed as if Mansukhlal Patel is power of attorney holder of Bhalabhai Koli and is land owner and was entitled to deal with the land. He would submit that the said sale deed has not been rightly registered since defendant No. 1 - Bhalabhai has already cancelled the power of attorney by issuing Public Notice way back on 31.08.2015. 5.4 He would submit that it is an undisputed fact that the land is new tenure land and having number of restrictions including prohibition of selling, transferring or agreement to such land and, therefore, whatever documents, which have been executed with regard to new tenure land, themselves are illegal and, therefore, defendant No. 1, who is holding the land, cannot be compelled to execute the sale deed, as prayed for, by the plaintiff. He would submit that at the instance of the plaintiff herself, a Court Commissioner was appointed by the Trial Court, who prepared report along with map. He would submit that at the instance of the plaintiff herself, a Court Commissioner was appointed by the Trial Court, who prepared report along with map. By taking me through the report at Mark-11/1, he would submit that there are lemon trees having height of about 8 to 10 feets and there are small water tanks and sign board, which discloses that the land was in possession of defendant Nos. 5 to 8. 5.5 Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Senior Counsel by taking me through the application being Civil Application No. 11164 of 2016, which has been filed by the appellants-original defendants under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 43 Rule 2 of the Code, would submit that when the panchnama was prepared prior to converting the land from new tenure to old tenure by Talati-cum-Mantri of Village: Manekvada on 23.06.2014, it has been specifically stated therein that possession of the land is with Bhalabhai Koli and the same has been signed by power of attorney holder i.e. Mansukhlal. He would submit that a report was prepared while considering the application for conversion of land, in which, possession of suit property was shown with Bhalabhai and stated that he is carrying out agricultural activities in the land. He, therefore, would submit that there is an ample material to establish that possession of the property was with Bhalabhai and thereafter was handed over to defendant Nos. 5 to 8. Learned Trial Court has erred in accepting the say of original plaintiff about having possession only on the ground that three documents were executed in the year 1999. He would submit that mother and brother of the defendant No. 1, who are not a party to the proceedings, have filed Affidavit in support of the original plaintiff and as they have never raised any objections with regard to re-grant of the land in favour of Bhalabhai and, therefore, there is no value of such Affidavits in the eye of law. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed. 5.6 By relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 276 , he would submit that the original plaintiff has failed in establishing that possession of the property is with her whereas the defendants have produced ample evidence to establish prima facie possession. 5.6 By relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 276 , he would submit that the original plaintiff has failed in establishing that possession of the property is with her whereas the defendants have produced ample evidence to establish prima facie possession. Hence, the learned Trial Court has erred in granting relief, as prayed for, by the original plaintiff. He has also relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Navalram Laxmidas Devmurari vs. Vijayaben Jayvantbhai Chavda, 1997 (1) GLH 841 and would submit that presumption with regard to possession follows the title and in the present case, it is undisputed fact that when the property was transferred by defendant No. 1, the same was of his ownership. As far as Civil Application submitted under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code is concerned, he has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Wadi vs. Amilal, 2015 (1) SCC 677 as well as decision in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Lakshman, AIR 2016 SC 3139 and would submit that interest of justice is paramount while dealing with the case on hand and, therefore, the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 is to be considered on that line. He would submit that the present hearing is with regard to the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code and, therefore, the documents, which are from the Government Agency are required to be taken on record and the Civil Application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 43 Rule 2 of the Code, is required to be allowed. He therefore would submit that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-original plaintiff has vehemently opposed this appeal and has submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the land, which was granted in favour of Mohanbhai Koli was of new tenure land and after his death, name of three legal heirs were mutated and, therefore, all three persons executed three documents on the same day i.e. on 27.09.1999. One document i.e. power of attorney was executed in favour of Mansukhlal, who is father-in-law of the original plaintiff. One document i.e. power of attorney was executed in favour of Mansukhlal, who is father-in-law of the original plaintiff. On the same day, Agreement to sell was executed by all the legal heirs of Mohanbhai Koli and possession was handed over to her. All the three persons have executed another document, by which, they have declared that till the name of plaintiff is not mutated in the revenue record, they shall not claim any right, title or interest in the said property. By taking me through these three documents, he would submit that specific narration has been made by accepting Rs. 50,000/- and peaceful possession having been handed over to her. He would submit that since the land is of new tenure in nature, all the three legal heirs including defendant No. 1 was aware that the same cannot be transferred and, therefore they agreed that till the name of the plaintiff is mutated in the revenue record, they shall not deal with. However, when the land was converted into the old tenure land, Bhalabhai sold the property in question so he could not have executed the sale deed since Agreement to sell was already executed in the year 1999. He would submit that power of attorney was executed by three persons and defendant No. 1 alone cannot cancel such power of attorney by publishing a Notice in the newspaper. The said Notice does not defeat the right of power of attorney holder, which was executed way back in the year 1999. He would submit that as far as possession of the property in question is concerned, defendant No. 1 has miserably failed in establishing that how he again came in possession of the property when the same was handed over way back in the year 1999. He would submit that there is no document, which prima facie establishes that possession of the property was handed over either by original plaintiff or his power of attorney to Bhalabhai. He would submit that the respondent- plaintiff is having another agricultural land adjacent to the land in question. The plaintiff is having electricity supply in her another field i.e. survey No. 12, from which, plants i.e. lemon trees were watered by using electricity supply from the adjacent field. He would submit that defendant Nos. 5 to 8 have not issued any Notice before purchasing the property in question. The plaintiff is having electricity supply in her another field i.e. survey No. 12, from which, plants i.e. lemon trees were watered by using electricity supply from the adjacent field. He would submit that defendant Nos. 5 to 8 have not issued any Notice before purchasing the property in question. He would submit that learned Trial Court has passed discretionary order, which is permissible and not a nature of pervert one, which would require any interference of this Court. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgement rendered in the case of Dinanath and Another vs. Gopalakrishna (Dad.) by LRs. 1990 SCC (Suppl) 767. He would submit that though learned Trial Court had granted stay from interfering with the possession, the appellants by taking shelter of order of status quo granted by this Court on 16.09.2016 tried to enter into the property and, therefore, the application has been filed for taking appropriate action, against which, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. He would submit that the field is maintained by original plaintiff since years and she is having possession of the property and if the impugned order is quashed and set aside, there would be irreparable loss, which cannot compensated in terms of money and, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The suit in question has been filed by the original plaintiff in July, 2016, in which, following prayers have been made: "(i) To declare that the sale deed executed by the legal heirs of Mohanbhai Motibhai dated 07.04.2016 is legal and valid and irrevocable power of attorney given by legal heirs of Mohanbhai Motibhai dated 27.09.1999 is also legal one and is in operation. (ii) Objections raised by the defendants with regard to registration of sale deed No. 949 by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are illegal and they have no right to object and they are binding to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff and do anything which is required for the same; (iii) Permanent injunction may be granted restraining the agents, servants or other persons of defendants from interfering with the possession of land described in para-12 of the suit; (iv) To declare that the sale deed executed on 10.05.2016 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 as illegal, null and void. 5 to 8 as illegal, null and void. (v) To permanently injunct defendant Nos. 5 to 8 from selling, mortgaging, gift or in any other way transferring the disputed land and further not to create any encumbrance by taking government or semi-government loan over the disputed land." 8. Along with the said suit, the application Exh-5 under Order 39 Rule 1 was submitted wherein, following prayers have been made: "(i) To restrain the defendants from entering into the property, which is in possession of the plaintiff; (ii) To declare the sale deed dated 10.05.2016 executed by defendant No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 as null and void; (iii) To temporary injunct defendant Nos. 5 to 8 from selling, mortgaging, gift, or in any other way transferring the disputed land and further not to create any encumbrance by taking government or semi-government loan over the disputed land." 9. As far as submissions made by Mr. Mehul Shah with regard to validity of the three documents, which alleged to have been executed in the year 1999 are concerned, I would not like to deal with the same at this stage and particularly when objections were never raised before the learned Trial Court. It appears that the sale deed has already been executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8, which have been registered in the year 2016, for which, prayers have been made in the suit and, therefore, question before this Court at this stage is prima facie to decide the possession of the property in question. 10. If three documents namely power of attorney; agreement to sell; possession receipt are perused, it appears that the same are executed on the same day i.e. on 27.09.1999. Defendant No. 1 has denied execution of agreement to sell and possession receipt in his written submission. It is true that power of attorney holder Mansukhlal, who happened to be father-in-law of the plaintiff, had remained present before several authorities for re-grant of the land and for conversion. It is also pertinent to note that after re-grant of the land in the year 2007, name of defendant No. 1 was mutated in the revenue record and land was re-granted to defendant No. 1. It is also pertinent to note that after re-grant of the land in the year 2007, name of defendant No. 1 was mutated in the revenue record and land was re-granted to defendant No. 1. Mother and brother of defendant No. 1 have tried to support the original plaintiff, who had never raised objections or had filed any application for inclusion of their names in the revenue record till date. It is pertinent to note that there is no response to the Public Notice given by defendant No. 1, by which power of attorney was cancelled. When the Court Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the original plaintiff and report was submitted on 31.07.2016, it suggests that sign board discloses that the property belongs to defendant Nos. 5 to 8 and they were in possession of the same. It is not the case of the plaintiff that this board was put by those defendants against protest of the plaintiff. At this stage, I would like to observe that in all revenue record, name of defendant No. 1 is reflected as owner and occupier of the disputed property. Hence, Civil Application 11164 of 2016, which is filed by the appellants to allow them to produce additional documents, which are produced before this Court from the revenue department, which suggests that defendants were in possession on 23.06.2014, requires to be allowed. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appeal requires consideration. Hence, this Appeal from Order is partly allowed and the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dhrangadhra below application Exh.5 preferred by the original plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, in Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. All the parties are restrained from transferring or creating any right, title or interest over the disputed property till final disposal of the suit. Civil Application No. 11164 of 2016 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 43 Rule 2 of the Code, is hereby allowed. In view of the above observations, Civil Application Nos. 9031 of 2016, 9924 of 2016, 2835 of 2017 do not survive and are accordingly disposed of. Observations made hereinabove shall not come in the way of either parties at the time of trial. 12. At this stage, Mr. In view of the above observations, Civil Application Nos. 9031 of 2016, 9924 of 2016, 2835 of 2017 do not survive and are accordingly disposed of. Observations made hereinabove shall not come in the way of either parties at the time of trial. 12. At this stage, Mr. Limbani, learned advocate for the respondent has requested to stay this order. 13. In view of the above request, all the parties to the suit are hereby directed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property for a period of six weeks from today. Appeal Partly Allowed.