A temporary injunction can only be granted if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. This civil revision application has been preferred by the above-named defendants No. 2 and 3 of Title Suit No. 7 of 1994 regarding part of the order dated 7.3.1994 passed by the Munsif at Seraikella and then confirmed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Chaibasa, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 1994 by which temporary injunction granted in favour of the original plaintiff-respondent has been maintained. The other part of the order regarding amalgamation of the above mentioned suit with Title Suit No. 32 of 1992 has not been challenged.

2. The original plaintiff Smt. Jamuna Naik alias Bodo Devi @ Savitri Devi Title suit No. 7 of 1994 before the court of Munsif at Seraikella for a relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 4.4.1975 executed by her brother defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 in respect of the suit lands as described in the schedule of the plaint was illegal, void and inoperative and without consideration and was not binding upon the original plaintiff. There was further prayer for a decree for confirmation of possession having legitimate half share in the suit property and alternatively for recovery of possession and for a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 2 and 3 from interfering/disturbing the plaintiffs possession and with her legitimate right of enjoyment of the suit lands.

3. It was the case of the plaintiff Sabitri Devi that she and her brother defendant No. 1 inherited the suit property from their predecessor and although she resides else-where with her husband but the occasionally comes to her fathers place and lives in the same house with her brother defendant No. 1 Sibu Naik, but defendant No. 1 defrauded her, sold away the entire property to defendants No. 2 and 3 in the year 1975 and when she come to know of it that the defendants were trying to divide the suit plot into sub-plots for their possession, then she filed the suit. It may be mentioned here that defendants No. 2 and 3 had filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1992 for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land against the defendant No. 1 Sibu Naik. In that suit, Sibu Naik took the plea that the suit land was inherited not be himself alone but also by her sister Smt. Jamuna Naik alias Sabitri Devi and he prayed for injunction against the plaintiffs of the suit for not interfering with the possession of the defendant Sibu Naik and her sister Smt. Jamuna Naik, but his prayer of such injunction was dismissed. It must also be mentioned here that the plaintiff Smt. Jamuna Naik made a petition under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) before the Sub-divisional Magistrate and it was found that the plaintiff Jamuna Naik and a Jhopri over the suit land and, the possession was found in favour of the plaintiff and restraint order was passed against the defendants No. 2 and 3.

4. On a prayer being made under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for and on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned Munsif, after hearing objection and on perusal of reply to the show cause granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and defendants No. 2 and 3 could not get possession by purchase from a cosharer unless there is partition in the suit property. It must be mentioned here that defendants No. 2 and 3 had challenged about the inheritance of the plaintiff Jamuna Devi over the suit property as being sister of defendant No. 1 Sibu Naik, but on an admission allegedly being made by the defendants No. 2 and 3 in reply to the show cause before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code, it was held by both the courts below that the defendant had admitted that Jamuna Devi was also a cosharer in the suit property, Granting of injunction by the plaintiff was challenged in that appeal, as mentioned above, but the appellate court al