JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No.467/2024 (NCV No.467/2024) whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC as filed on behalf of the plaintiffs stood allowed and it was directed that till the final disposal of the suit, the defendants shall not dispossess the plaintiffs from the land as bequeathed to their mother vide the Will dated 27.03.1984.The defendants were further restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and also to maintain status quo regarding the property in question. 2. The facts are that the legal representatives of one Bhanwari Devi (Respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/9) filed a suit for declaration and injunction with a submission that way back in the year 2001-02, a Will was executed by Gunesh Ram (the Khatedar of the property in question) in favour of Bhanwari Devi, their mother. Gunesh Ram expired on 02.08.2004 and since then Bhanwari Devi was in possession of the property in question. Despite the land being bequeathed by Gunesh Ram to Bhanwari Devi, the Revenue Officers mutated the land in favour of the legal representatives of Gunesh Ram and therefore, in the year 2015 a mutation appeal was filed by Bhanwari Devi which remains pending as of date. 3. Subsequently, Bhanwari Devi expired on 19.12.2019 and her legal representatives are in possession of the property in question since then. 4. It was further submitted that because of the erroneous mutation entries made in favour of the legal representatives of Gunesh Ram in the year 2012, they proceeded on to sell out the land in question to different purchasers (defendant Nos.2,3 and 4) from time to time. The sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No.4 in the year 2024 for 14 biswas of land. 5. At this stage it is relevant to note that the present appeal has been filed by defendant No.4 – Suresh Pal Singh Tanwar only. 6. The case of defendant No.4 was that firstly, no Will was executed by Gunesh Ram in favour of Bhanwari Devi. Secondly, plaintiffs were in possession of the land of Babu Ram (brother of Gunesh Ram). At this stage it is relevant to note that the present appeal has been filed by defendant No.4 – Suresh Pal Singh Tanwar only. 6. The case of defendant No.4 was that firstly, no Will was executed by Gunesh Ram in favour of Bhanwari Devi. Secondly, plaintiffs were in possession of the land of Babu Ram (brother of Gunesh Ram). In the garb of the possession on the land of Babu Ram, the plaintiffs were trying to encroach on the land of Gunesh Ram too. It was further submitted on behalf of defendant No.4 that even in the mutation appeal as filed by the legal representatives of Bhanwari Devi, an application for impleadment had been filed by him which remains pending. 7. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the land which was sold out to defendant No.4 and hence they do not deserve any interim relief in their favour. 8. The learned Trial Court while allowing the application relied upon the documents as placed on record by the plaintiffs i.e. their Aadhar Card and documents pertaining to water and electricity connection. Court also relied upon the photographs of the site in question reflecting the residential houses existing on the site. 9. The learned Trial Court further observed that the question whether any Will was executed by Gunesh Ram in favour of Bhanwari Devi, could be decided only after the evidence being led and the issue being decided finally, till that date interim relief deserves to be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. 10. Heard the counsels and perused the record. 11. The present is a suit for declaration of the sale deeds executed in favour of the subsequent purchasers by the legal representatives of Mafat Lal (son of Gunesh Ram) to be null and void. 12. What is evident on record is that the plaintiffs who claimed to be in possession of the land in question by virtue of a Will executed in the year 1984 and came into effect after the death of Gunesh Ram in the year 2004, did not take any step for the mutation entries to be made in their favour till the year 2012 when the mutation entries were ultimately made in favour of the legal representatives of Gunesh Ram. What is further evident is that the said mutation entries were challenged in the year 2015. 13. What is further evident is that the said mutation entries were challenged in the year 2015. 13. What has been argued before this Court by counsel for the respondents is that they are in possession of the complete land which was of the ownership of Gunesh Ram and Babu Ram both. Counsel argued that in fact two Wills were executed in favour of Bhanwari Devi on the same date i.e. 27.03.1984 one by Gunesh Ram and other by Babu Ram. But interestingly, the said fact has not been pleaded in the plaint or even in both the mutation appeals as filed by the legal representatives of Bhanwari Devi. Further, the mutation appeal challenging mutation in favour of Babu Ram had been filed in the year 2012 whereas that in favour of legal representatives of Gunesh Ram was challenged in the year 2015. Admittedly, in none of the appeals the fact of there being two Wills in existence was ever pleaded. Had there been two Wills in existence, it would have been the first fact which the plaintiffs would have pleaded before the Trial Court. 14. The fact of the plaintiffs being in possession of the land in the ownership of Babu Ram has not been disputed by defendant No.4. It has rather been pleaded that the legal representatives of Bhanwari Devi are in possession of the land which was in the ownership of Babu Ram and in the garb of same, they are trying to encroach upon the land in the ownership of Gunesh Ram also which had been sold out by the legal representatives of Gunesh Ram to the subsequent purchasers. 15. In view of the above facts, as observed by the learned trial Court, the issue whether in fact any Will was executed in favour of Bhanwari Devi by Gunesh Ram would definitely be a subject matter to be decided on basis of the evidence as led by the parties. But then, the fact of mutation entries been made in favour of legal representatives of Gunesh Ram way back in the year 2012 and the subsequent sale deeds been executed in favour of different purchasers is also evident on record. The subsequent purchasers being the bonafide purchasers, their rights too deserve to be protected at this stage. 16. But then, the fact of mutation entries been made in favour of legal representatives of Gunesh Ram way back in the year 2012 and the subsequent sale deeds been executed in favour of different purchasers is also evident on record. The subsequent purchasers being the bonafide purchasers, their rights too deserve to be protected at this stage. 16. In view of the overall facts and circumstances, status quo regarding the property in question deserves to be maintained by both the parties. The order impugned dated 19.12.2024 to the extent it restrains the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs deserves interference. 17. Consequently, order dated 19.12.2024 is modified to the extent that both the parties i.e. the plaintiffs as well as defendant No.4 shall maintain status quo regarding the 14 biswas of land as purchased by defendant No.4 vide sale deed dated 17.09.2024 till the final disposal of the suit in question. 18. The appeal is hence, disposed of. 19. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.