JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. 1. Dhanram had sought cancellation of gift deed by his wife Bhori Devi in favour of her grand-daughter Rashmi Sharma. During the pendency of the suit, Dhanram has died and now, the suit is being pursued by his son Jagdish Sharma and grand-son Rohit. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‘C.P.C.’). 3. Learned counsel for contesting respondents, has opposed the appeal. 4. In the present case, admittedly, Bhori Devi is the owner of the property-in-question. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the property-in-question was purchased in the name of Bhori Devi out of funds of Dhanram and his sons Harinarayan and Jagdish Sharma. Case of Eihori Devi, on the other hand, is that the property-in-question was purchased by her, after selling property received by her from her father. Bhori Devi executed a gift deed in favour of her grand-daughter Rashmi Sharma. Both the parties are yet to lead their evidence in respect of their pleas. However, at this stage, Bhori Devi is the lawful owner of the property-in-question. In case, contesting respondents are not allowed to use the property in the manner they like, they would suffer an irreparable loss. In these circumstances, no prima facie case or balance of convenience exists in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned trial Court has, thus, rightly dismissed the appeal moved by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. Dismissed.