Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE appellant -plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC challenging the order dt. 27.07.2013 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in T.I. Application No. 114/12 (183/12), whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant -plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. In the instant case it appears that the appellant -plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondents seeking cancellation of the sale -deed dt. 18.05.2012 executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 and also for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land. The appellant had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction alleging inter alia that the appellant happened to be the adopted daughter of the respondent No. 2 and she had one half share in the suit land which was an ancestral land and that the respondent No. 2 could not have sold out her share in the suit land to the respondent No. 1. The trial Court has dismissed the said application for temporary injunction vide the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) IT is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. B.M. Gurjar for the appellant that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had one half share in the suit land, she being an adopted daughter of the respondent No. 2, and that any further transfer by the respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit land would create further multiplicity of the proceedings. He also submitted that one suit has already been filed by the appellant before the revenue Court and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 is required to be restrained from making any further transfer and alienation of the suit land. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court it appears that the appellant had failed to prima facie establish that she was the adopted daughter of the respondent No. 2 Rewadmal. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the issue whether she was adopted daughter of the respondent No. 2 or not and whether the suit property was an ancestral property or not would be the issues which could be decided only after the evidence is led in the suit. The respondent No. 1 being the bonafide purchaser, who has purchased the suit land from the respondent No. 2 by executing the registered sale -deed, no injunction as prayed for could be granted pending the suit. It is needless to say that if any alienation or transfer is made by the respondent No. 1 pending the suit, the same shall be subject to the result of the suit. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the appellant having failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;