( 1 ) SINCE both these Appeals From order are arising out of the same Civil suit and since they are heard together, they are being heard and common order is passed whereby Appeal From order No. 335 of 2009 is admitted and appeal From Order No. 336 of 2009 is disposed off.

( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties, both the Appeals from Order are taken up for hearing.

( 3 ) APPEAL from Order No. 335 of 2009 is filed by the appellant- original defendant No. 4 challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Senior civil Judge, Vadodara on 18. 08. 2009 below an application Exhibit 5 in special Civil Suit No. 602 of 2008, whereby the learned Judge partly allowed the application Exhibit 5, and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit land.

( 4 ) APPEAL from Order No. 336 of 2009 is filed by the appellant original defendant No. 5 challenging the same order of learned Additional Senior Civil judge, Vadodara passed on 18. 08. 2009 below an application Exhibit 5 in special Civil Suit No. 602 of 2008.

( 5 ) MR. MIHIR Thakore, learned senior counsel with Mr. Parthiv Shah, learned advocate appears for the appellants and Mr. L. R. Pathan, learned Advocate with Mr. M. A. Sapa, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 original plaintiffs appears in Appeal from Order no. 335 of 2009. Mr. S. B. Vakil, learned advocate with Ms. A. R. Acharya. learned Advocate appears for the appellant and Mr. L. R. Pathan, learned advocate with Mr. M. A. Sapa, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs appears in Appeal from Order No. 336 of 2009.

( 6 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. l and 2 -original plaintiff Nos. 1/1 and 1/2 have filed special Civil Suit No. 602 of 2008 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 231, admeasuring 16911 sq mtr of Mouje daanteshwar, Tai. and Dist. Vadodara on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Late Shri mahendrakumar A. Vaidya who expired on 26. 8. 2001. After the demise of Late shri M. A. Vaidya, their names came to be mutated in the property card in respect of suit land on 28. 1. 2008. Despite they being legal heirs of deceased Shri M. A. Vaidya and though their names were mutated in the property card and though late Shri M. A. Vaidya expired on 26. 8. 2001, the Power of attorney holder i. e. respondent No. 4-original defendant No. 3 Shri Dhananjay v. Patel executed registered sale-deed in favour of the appellant on 2. 5. 2008. Hence, the respondent No. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs filed Special Civil suit No. 602 of 2008 for cancellation of raja Chitthi granted by the respondent no. 6-defendant No. 6 i. e. Vadodara mahanagar Seva Sadan. The respondent nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs have also prayed for stay restraining all the original defendant Nos. 1 to 5 including the appellant from transfering the suit land. Along with the suit, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 also filed an application exhibit 5 for temporary injunction. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the sides passed the impugned order dated 18. 8. 2009 below an application Exhibit 5 whereby he partly allowed application and directed the parties to maintain status quo (qua) the suit land.

( 7 ) IT is this order which is under challenge in both these Appeals from order.

( 8 ) MR. MIHIR Thakore, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in appeal from Order No. 335 of 2009 has submitted that the appellant has got the registered agreement to sell on 10. 04. 2001 and admittedly, the said agreement to sell was signed by, late shri M. A. Vaidya, the father of the respondent Nos. l and 2 and also the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 along with respondent No. 3 an uncle of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3. He has further submitted that by the said agreement to sell, the appellant was required to pay Rs. 31/- lacs and on the date of execution of the documents, rs. 3/- lacs were paid by cheque. Hence, during the life time of father of respondent N