Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—This is plaintiff’s appeal against the order dt. 01.08.2006 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. No. 12/2005 whereby its application seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has been rejected.

2. The plaintiff stating itself to be a registered trust has filed a civil suit on 18.06.2005 for cancellation of sale deed and perpetual injunction with the submissions that the plaintiff was engaged in dissemination of education and in encouraging charitable and public utility works and has been issued certificate under Sec. 80-G of the Income Tax Act. The plaintiff averred that in relation to 16 bighas and 16 biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 472/1 at village Dhinano Ki Dhani, Tehsil Pal District Jodhpur, its khatedar defendant No. 1 Nema Ram, who had been working with the relatives of the Chief Trustee of the plaintiff for the last 20-25 years made a request to the Chairperson of the plaintiff institution Shyam Baheti in the month of April, 2004 that he was willing to alienate the aforesaid land to the plaintiff; that thereafter in the month of June, 2004 when such request was repeated and the plaintiff was also interested in taking up its public welfare work, upon being satisfied about the land in question to be of its utility, the plaintiff agreed to accept the same; that an agreement was executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff to hand over the land in terms of the provisions of Sec. 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, (‘the Act’). The plaintiff has alleged the defendant No.1 agreed to receive Rs. 11,01,000/- under the agreement and accepted an amount of Rs. 1,01,000/- on 28.06.2004 and accepted cheques with Rs. 10,00,000/- of different dates from the plaintiff; the defendant No.1 executed a receipt and handed over actual physical possession of the entire land to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff put wire-fencing around the land.

3. It has further been averred in the plaint that in terms of Sec. 90-B of the Act, the plaintiff has moved application before the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (‘the UIT’) on 05.04.2005 with the consent and willingness of the defendant No.1 who accompanied the Chairman of the plaintiff-Trust to the UIT for the purpose of filing the application. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 had also executed a surrender deed in favour of State of Rajasthan and, therefore, no right remained in him after the application was moved to the UIT; and further that upon execution of the agreement, upon acceptance of total amount under the agreement, and upon moving of application to the UIT the defendant had no right to interfere with the land or to deal with the same.

4. The plaintiff has alleged that defendant No.1 was thereafter overcome by greed and committed a fraud with the plaintiff-institution; and in a wholly illegal and unauthorised manner purported to sell the land in question to the defendant No. 2, Smt. Shanti on 13.05.2005. According to the plaintiff the said sale deed being wholly unauthorised remains void ab initio; and that the plaintiff has continued in possession of the land in question and this land could never have been alienated to defendant No. 2 nor possession could have been delivered. The plaintiff has also alleged that defendant No. 3 was the real person behind this clandestine deal and it is doubtful if the named woman, Shanti wife of Teja Ram Bheel, at all exists? The plaintiff has alleged that all the original documents relating to the land in question have been handed over to it at the time of execution of the agreement and they are to be filed before the UIT. According to the plaintiff, in furtherance of the attempt on the part of defendants No. 1 & 3 to over-reach the rights and authority of the plaintiff on the land in question, on 14.06.2005 the Chairperson of the plaintiff-institution was threatened by the defendants Nos. 1 & 3 at the site to re