( 1 ) INJUNCTION in their favour to restrain respondents 1 to 4 from alienating the suit property. The suit has been brought for partition between the plaintiffs and the respondents 1 to 4. Respondents 5 to 7 are alienees. Father of the plaintiffs and the father of the respondents 1 to 4 were brothers. This suit is contested by the respondents contending the suit to be not maintainable as there has been previous partition in 1988 with allotment of specific parcels of land to each branch and parties to have been not only possessing such properties in accordance with previous partition but also each party to have been selling out each allotted portion independently. Mr. T. Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel for the appellants urges there to have been no previous partition and the properties to be joint coparcenary properties. It is the submission that the balance of convenience lies in protecting the property from alienation till the disposal of the suit.

( 2 ) ). It is admitted before us that separate parcels of the property have been recorded in pahanies in the name of each branch. Though ultimately whether there has been a previous partition or not and what is the evidentiary value of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document