Honble TATIA, J.–This Misc. appeal has been preferred by the defendants to challenge the order of the trial court dated 10.3.2006 by which the learned Addl. District Judge, Nathdwara allowed the respondents injunction application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and directed both the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the property in dispute and permitted defendants no.3 and 4 to close the door if they are opened, so that unwanted persons may not entered into the property and the property may be protected properly. It is also ordered that if any preventive measures are taken by the administrative authorities by preventing of entry of unwanted persons in the disputed property then the particulars of those measures be furnished to the trial court.

(2). Brief facts which have emerged from the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record are required to be mentioned for the purpose of deciding this appeal. It is said that a Patta was issued for the property in dispute in the name of Shri Gopal Lal grand-father of defendantno.2 Shri Krishna Kumar in the Samvat year 1945. Copy of the said Patta has been placed on record. Said Gopal Lal died and his son Shri G.S. Vitthalnathji Gopalji Maharaj, put his ancestral as well as his self-acquired properties including the property in dispute in common hotchpotch of joint Hindu family and thereafter all the properties were partitioned in the year 1962. A memorandum of partition was reduced in writing on 16.12.67, copy of which has been placed on record by the defendants. By this, the partition of the year 1962, the memorandum which was written on 16.12.1967, the property in dispute involved in the suit came in the share of defendant no.2 Krishna Kumar. Said Krishna Kumar sold the property to Chandra Kant and his family members by registered sale-deed dated 2.7.1977. In the year 1982, said Krishna Kumar who started living at Baroda, decided to create a public trust and gave his personal property to Shri Mathuru Nathji temple to create trust and for that purpose, prepared the scheme of trust which was reduced in writing by deed dated 2.6.1982. It is a case of the defendants appellants as well as his predecessor in title Krishna Kumar defendant no.2 that on 2.6.1982 defendant no.2 was not owner of the property in dispute and, therefore, the the property in dispute was not included in the said scheme of the trust. The copy of the sale deed dated 2.7.1977 as well as the scheme of trust dated 2.6.1982 are also placed on record. To get the trust registered as public trust, an application was submitted before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur on 8.6.1982 by said Krishna Kumar through his Advocate. The copy of the scheme of the trust along with Form No.6 as is required under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959(for short the Act of 1959), were also submitted to said authority by the said Krishna Kumar. The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department registered the case and issued public notice on 10.11.1982 and thereafter also got the notice published in the news papers also. Said Krishna Kumar appointed his power of attorney to get all work of registration of trust. This power of attorney is dated 28.6.1983. It is said by the defendants that this power of attorney was for only one temple, that is Shri Mathura Nathuji temple and was not for the property in dispute. On 21.11.1983, certain documents were submitted by said Krishna Kumars power of attorney, along with other documents, also submitted the registered sale deed dated 2.7.1977 by which Krishna Kumar himself sold the suit property to Chandra Kant and his family members. Krishna Kant did not gave his statement in the proceedings for registration of the trust but his power of attorney Chunni Lal gave his statement before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department on 2.3.1984. It is alleged that in fact, the suit property was not included in the scheme of the trust nor it was menti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document