1. - This petition is directed against order dated 12.12.13 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur, whereby an appeal preferred by the first respondent against the order dated 3.8.13 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Sumerpur, granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff has been allowed and the injunction granted, stands set aside.

2. The petitioner-plaintiff preferred a suit for cancellation of relinquishment deed and permanent injunction against the respondent no.1 & 2 claiming that the respondent who is brother of the petitioner got the relinquishment deed signed while giving impression that the same is a partition deed executed in respect of the ancestral property. It is averred that when the respondent attempted to sell the disputed land, the factum of fraud committed came to the petitioner's notice.

3. The petitioner also filed an application seeking injunction in terms that during pendency of the suit, the respondent may not transfer or alienate the disputed property and the petitioner's possession over the land in question may not be interfered with.

4. The application was contested by the respondent by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that after the death of the father of the petitioner and the respondent, with the consent of the family members, the petitioner was inducted in Government service on compassionate ground as dependent of his deceased father and at the same time, the ancestral properties were also partitioned. It was averred that instead of executing the partition deed, it was considered appropriate to get the relinquishment deeds executed. According to the respondent, in terms of the partition, the = share in the land comprising khasra no.857 and 858 fell in the share of the petitioner-plaintiff and the land comprising khasra no.1055 fell in the share of the respondent. It was further averred that after the partition and execution of the relinquishment deed, the land in question is in exclusive possession of the respondent and the same has been developed by him by installing a tubewell.

5. After due consideration, the trial court vide order dated 3.8.13 granted injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff in terms that the status quo shall be maintained in respect of the disputed property and the property shall not be alienated to anybody else, till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate court which stands allowed by the order impugned. Hence,this petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the appellate court has failed to consider the material on record objectively and the findings arrived at are ex facie capricious and perverse. Learned counsel submitted that if the status quo in respect of the disputed property is not maintained, the purpose of the suit filed by the petitioner shall stand frustrated. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has preferred the suit for cancellation of relinquishment deed and therefore, till the dispute raised is adjudicated by the court below, the defendants cannot be permitted to transfer the property in any manner and therefore, the appellate court has seriously erred in interfering with the order passed by the court below granting injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff.

7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the order impugned passed by the appellate court, submitted that the relinquishment deeds executed between the parties stand duly registered with the concerned authority and the stand sought to be taken by the petitioner, who is a Government employee, in terms that his signatures on the relinquishment deed were obtained by committing fraud, has rightly been disbelieved by the appellate court. Learned counsel submitted that after the relinquishment deeds being executed as aforesaid, the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the land comprising khasra no.857 and 85