Importan Point: Principles governing the grant of temporary injunction are namely the existence of a prima facie case, irreparable loss and the balance of convenience and that the Court cannot exercise the power of granting temporary injunction mechanically unless the existence of these three ingredients are established.

Heard learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties.

2. Admit.

3. Shri A. Ramani, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. This is an appeal at the instance of the appellants/ original defendants no.2 and 3 challenging the order dated 3.6.2016 passed by the Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Panaji by which she had secured the respondents/original plaintiffs by an order of injunction restraining them from alienating, creating any third party rights and/or in any manner interfering with any of the properties left behind by late Shri Alvaro Jose Teofilo Pinto, to the exclusion of the applicants, on the basis of the said Deed of Family Settlement and Relinquishment dated 21.6.2005 and/or the Deed of Succession dated 22.10.2012 till the disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved thereby the original defendants no.2 and 3 are in appeal and who would be referred to in their original status for brevity's sake hereinafter.

5. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the appellants who submitted that the parents had distributed the property owned by them during their lifetime by the Deed of Settlement dated 21.6.2005. The respondents/plaintiffs had disposed off the property allotted to them in the Family Settlement. However there was no disclosure of the Family Settlement in the Inventory Proceedings initiated by them and followed by the suit in 2014 to challenge the Family Settlement. The plaintiffs had otherwise disposed off the property under the Family arrangement to which she otherwise had no right. The trial Court had unduly relied on Article 2042 of the Family Laws and held that the Deed of Family Settlement was invalid when such Article was not applicable to the case at hand. Assuming without admitting that Article 2042 applied to the case, still the plaintiffs could not challenge the Deed of Family Settlement having taken benefits thereunder. He relied in Kale and others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation others,[CDJ 1976 SC 263] and Narendra Kante Vs Anuradha Kante and others [(2010)2 SCC 77] to invoke the doctrine of estoppel. Besides, he adverted to the Deed of Family Settlement and contended that there was a gross delay and laches at the instance of the plaintiffs which was ignored by the learned trial Court who exercised the discretion arbitrarily in the plaintiffs' favour. The impugned order had therefore to be interfered with in appeal and had to be set aside.

6. Shri A. Ramani, learned Advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs at the outset distinguished the judgments relied in Kale and others and Narendra Kante (supra) and submitted that the Deed of Family Settlement was only in respect of some properties and it did not pertain to all the properties of her parents. Article 2042 of the Family Laws applied to the plaintiffs' case and the Deed of Family Settlement was bad since no renunciation of future legitime could be made. The judgment in Kale and others (supra) was distinguishable inasmuch as there was a division of the property to the son and the daughters in equal shares unlike the present case where substantial properties were left by the parents to the defendant/appellant no.1 herein. The judgment in Narendra Kante (supra), too was distinguishable. He relied in Maharwal Khewaji Trust(Regd) Vs Faridkot V. Baldev Dass,[ AIR 2005 SC 104], Pralhad Jaganath Jawale and others Vs. Sitabai Chander Nikam and others[2011(4) Mh. L. J. 137] and Krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India[AIR 1990 SC 1782] to conclude his arguments that the impugned order did not justify any interference in appeal.

7. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the defendants/ appellants contended in reply that there was no plea in the pleadings on the distribution of the assets being unequal or inequitable or the Deed of Family Settlement being brought about by fraud. It was also not a case that the allotment was shockingly disproportionate. Besides, the plaintiffs had taken only a technical