JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal was heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant has challenged order passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC dated 06.10.2016 whereby he has passed interim injunction directing that the property situated at Plot No. 162-B, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur shall neither be alienated nor transferred nor any construction be made thereto.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he has no objection with regard to the injunction relating to restraining from alienation of property or transferring it to any third party. He submits that so far as restraining the appellant from making construction in the property is concerned, was wholly uncalled for. Learned counsel has submitted that the property is in possession of the appellant-defendant. Admittedly the plaintiff is residing in another plot situated at B-385, Saraswati Nagar, Jodhpur. Learned counsel submits that neither prima facie case was in favour of the plaintiff nor balance of convenience can be said to be in her favour. No irreparable injury was being caused if construction was made on the property, as the appellant would be constructing the house at his own risk and cost and if at all ultimately the suit would have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the constructed portion could have been handed-over to the plaintiff.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions and submits that the respondent-plaintiff was a widow of brother of the appellant in whose favour father of the appellant had promised to give half portion of the said property in-question. In this regard he had written a letter to JDA Authorities for dividing the house property in two portions and, thus, as per the promise, the property would have come in respondent's favour as her husband expired. Learned counsel while supporting the order submits that it has correctly reached to the conclusion that the property of Plot No. 162 was required to be divided as per wish of father as Plot No. 161-A and 162-B and one of the plot was required to be given to Govind Ram, late husband of the plaintiff-respondent and, therefore, submits that injunction order ought not be interfered and has relied upon the following judgments:- 2014(2) WLC (SC) Civil 407 Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. M/s. Vijay Solvex Ltd. & Ors.; 2012 AIR SCW 3007 Marcel Martins Vs. M. Printer & Ors; 2008(2) Western Law Cases (SC) Civil 528 Shaikh Ali Hossain & Ors. Vs. Sk. Showkat Ali & Anr., 2004(8) SCC 488 Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass; AIR 1958 SCC 79 Martin Burn Ltd. Vs. R.N. Banerjee; AIR (39) 1952 SC 12 The State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta; 2014 AIR CC 378 (Raj.) Bhagwati Singh Vs. Raja Laxman Singh; AIR 1964 (Raj.) 279 Narayan Dutt & Anr. Vs. Smt. Mohani Devi; RLR 1988(1) 850 M/s. Toyal Bros. Vs. Gram Panchayat Chichowari; 2013(4) DNJ (Raj.) 1501 Jai Singh Vs. Kuldeep Sharma & Anr.; 2008(2) DNJ (Raj.) 955 Janki Devi (Smt.) Vs. Santosh Kumar; 2008(1) DNJ (Raj.) 368 Safi Khan Vs. Ibrahim Khan & Ors.; DNJ (Raj.) 1995 page 699 Bhabhoota Ram Vs. G.D. Saxena & Anr.; AIR 1978 Allahabad 157 Ram Chander Dubey & Anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation; 2013(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1094 Rajeshwer Shankar Choudhary @ Rajesh Choudhary & Anr. Vs. Shiv Shankar Choudhary & Ors.; 1996(4) CCC page 394 (Raj.) Exotique Apparels, Smt. Indira Bali Vs. Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.; AIR 2009 (NOC) page 2462 (Gau.) Lankeshwar Malakar & Ors. Vs. Harendra Nath Deka (Dead) & Ors and AIR 2014 Madras page 6 R. Jayapaul Vs. Pappayee Ammal.

5. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the record, which was summoned from the trial court.

6. The plaintiff-respondent has preferred a suit for declaration, possession and cancellation of gift-deed executed in favour of the defendant-appellant. Plot No. 162 was allotted in the name o