Mr. Amit Rawal, J.:- The present revision petition is directed against the orders 28.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) and 01.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed along with the suit (Annexure P-6) for restraining the defendants from alienation of the suit property, has been dismissed.

2. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 28.11.2015 granted status quo, which was ordered to be continued vide order dated 19.02.2016.

3. The petitioner-plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration claiming following relief:-

“Suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed mentioned at Points A to D are illegal, void, without authority, without consideration, the result of fraud and misrepresentation against the laws of the land and as such are liable to be set aside.

A. Sale Deed bearing Vasika No.1748 registered on 4.5.2010 in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 of the land measuring 5 bighas 14-3/4 biswas being ¼ share of the land comprised in Khewat No.56 Khatauni No.76, Khasra No.775/23 Min. (0-10), 24 Min. (3-12), 25 Min. (3-15), 26 (3-16), 27 (6-0), 27 Min. (0-7), 29 Min. (4-19) total being 7 bigha 0-3/4 biswas situated at village Rawas Brahmna, Tehsil and District Patiala.

B. Sale deed bearing Vasika No.1750 registered on 04.05.2010 in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 of the land measuring 5 bigha 14-3/4 Biswas being ¼ share of the land comprised in Khewat No.56, Khatauni No.76, Khasra No.775/23 Min. (0-10), 24 Min. (3-12), 25 Min. (3-15), 26(3-16), 27(6-0), 27 Min. (0-7), 29 Min. (4-19) total being 7 bigha 0-3/4 biswas situated at Village Rawas Brahmna, Tehsil & District Patiala.

C. Sale deed bearing Vasika No.1766 registered on 04.05.2010 in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 of the land measuring 5 bigha 14-3/4 biswas being ¼ share of the land comprised in Khewat No.56 Khatauni No.76, Khasra No.775/23 Min.(0-10), 24 Min. (3-12), 25 Min. (3-15), 26(3-16), 27 (6-0), 27 Min. (0-7), 29 Min. (4-19) total being 7 bigha 0-3/4 Biswas situated at village Rawas Brahmna, Tehsil & District Patiala.

D. Sale deed bearing Vasika No.1767 registered on 04.05.2010 in favour of defendant No.1 by the defendant No.2 of the land measuring 5 bigha 14-3/4 Biswas being ¼ share of the land comprised in Khewat No.56 Khatauni No.76, Khasra No.775/23 Min.(0-10), 24 Min. (3-12), 25 Min.(3-15), 26 (3-16), 27(6-0), 27 Min.(0-7), 29 Min (4-19) total being 7 bigha 0-3/4 biswas situated at village Rawas Brahmna, Tehsil and District Patiala. And for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1, his attorney and agents from alienating by way of sale, mortgage or otherwise or creating any encumbrance upon the land measuring 22 bigha 19 biswas comprised in Khewat No.56 Khatauni No.76, Khara No.775/23Min (0-10), 24 Min. (3-12), 25 Min. (3- 15), 26 (3-16), 27 (6-0), 27 Min. (0-7), 29 Min. (4-19) situated at Village Rawas Brahmna, Tehsil & District Patiala.

4. The pith and substance of the prayer was to challenge the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. The suit was also accompanied by application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

5. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 opposed the suit by raising objections qua maintainability of the suit being barred under the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

6. The trial Court declined the ad interim application by holding that the sale deeds being registered documents carried presumption of truth. Appeal taken before the lower Appellate has also been dismissed.

7. Mr. Ramandeep Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that sale deeds in the name of the petitioner-plaintiff were executed as a fiduciary of respondent No.3, owing to the fact that he suffered a long and protracted matrimonial dispute with his wife and wanted to avoid excessive claims on alimony and maintenance. In fact the petitioner-plaintiff had been in the uninterrupted possessi