SABINA,J. - (1.) Appellants have filed this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as "C.P.C."), challenging the order dated 24.10.2013, whereby application moved by the respondents No. 1 to 4 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. was allowed and defendants were restrained from alienating the land in question and from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that initially, Kishan Gopi and Roopnarayan defendants No. 1 and 2 were having tenancy rights over the property in question and were in possession of the property. They sold their tenancy rights to defendant No. 3-Babulal. Babulal further sold his tenancy rights in favour of defendants no. 4, 5 and 6. Plaintiffs had sought cancellation of the sale deed executed by Babulal in favour of the appellants. although, plaintiffs had no legal right to challenge the said sale deed. So far as the sale deed executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant no. 3- Babulal is concerned, the same has not been challenged by anyone till date.
(3.) Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the said respondents are in possession of the land for the last about 30 years. Hence, impugned order was liable to be upheld.;