JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - Judgment 30/09/20211. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan 1st, Jaipur reversing the order dated 11.10.2019, passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.32, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan. 2. The pertinent facts are that the plaintiff (petitioners herein) had filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 22.06.1982, by way of instituting a suit on 02.06.2016. Alongwith the suit aforesaid, they had also filed an application for temporary injunction, which came to be allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 11.10.2019 with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the disputed land. The parties were also restrained from selling and raising construction over the property and changing the revenue enteries. 3. The defendants (respondents herein) preferred an appeal against the order of the trial Court, which has been allowed by the Appellate Court and order dated 11.10.2019 granting temporary injunction has been set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, challenging the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Appellate Court argued that the plaintiff had challenged a sale deed purportedly executed by him in favour of the defendants, alleging that the sale deed in question was got executed fraudulently, which is evident from the fact that on the same day, another sale deed in relation to 1 bigha 17 biswas of land parcel was executed in favour of the plaintiff by none other than the defendants. 5. Learned counsel argued that the plaintiff's case as set up is, that in the guise of getting the sale deed (of 1 bigha 17 biswa land) executed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants had clandestinely got another document executed in their favour transferring 9 bighas 7 biswas land. 6. Learned counsel argued that if the injunction granted by the trial Court is not maintained and the defendants are permitted to deal with the property and create third party rights qua the disputed land, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation and plaintiff's rights of getting the fruits of the decree would wither away. 7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel cited following judgments (i) (2004) 8 SCC 488 Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass (ii) [2020] 2 RLW(Raj) 1542 Har Narayan Vs. Kanchan Pan war and Ors. 7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel cited following judgments (i) (2004) 8 SCC 488 Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass (ii) [2020] 2 RLW(Raj) 1542 Har Narayan Vs. Kanchan Pan war and Ors. 8. Ms. Madhumita, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants, on the other hand, argued that the suit brought in by Chittar - plaintiff was malicious and time barred, inasmuch as the sale deed which was executed way back on 22.06.1982 has been challenged in the year 2016. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in any case, the respondents owner of the subject property cannot be deprived of use and occupation of the property and no injunction can be granted against their rights. 10. She submitted that the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1882), in any case, are enough to take care of petitioners' rights and thus, the order passed by the Appellate Court be affirmed. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Appellate Court does not call for any interference. 12. The appellate Court has given cogent reasons while setting aside the injunction granted by the trial Court. 13. Considering that the plaintiff has challenged the registered sale deed executed on 22.06.1982 after about 34 years, that too when none other than he himself was the executor, in the opinion of this Court, the defendants-respondents cannot be restrained from enjoyment of the property. 14. In case the suit filed by the plaintiff(s) is decreed, the law will take its own course and provisions of Section 52 of the Act of 1882 will come to plaintiff's aid. 15. Adverting to the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, suffice it to mention that they lay down general principles for grant of injunction in the matters relating to challenge to a sale deed. 16. In the present factual backdrop, when the rival parties are close relatives and reside in the same village, challenge to a sale deed executed about 34 years ago is inexplicable at least for the purpose of grant of injunction. 17. As an upshot of discussion foregoing, the writ petition fails. 18. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.