S.N.HUSSAIN, J.

1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs against order dated 18.1.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge, 8th Court, East Champaran, at Motihari rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs for grant of injunction against the defendants (respondents) for restraining them from transferring the suit properties and from raising any construction over the same and from changing its nature till the disposal of the suit bearing Title Suit No. 471 of 2004.

2. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellants for declaration that the three deeds of gift dated 24.11.1998 and 6.11.2004 executed with respect to the suit property measuring about 2 kathas by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1 were void and illegal and also for confirmation of the plaintiffs joint possession-over the suit property with the defendants and also for restraining them from transferring and making construction over the suit lands.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants submitted that all the parties to the suit belong to the same family and their common ancestor was Bhuramal Gadodia, who left behind only one son Satya Narayan Gadodia (defendant no. 3), who has two sons, namely, Pawan Kumar Gadodia (plaintiff no. 1) and Man Mohan Kumar Gadodia (defendant no. 2). Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are the sons of Pawan Kumar Gadodia (plaintiff no. 1), whereas, defendant no. 1 is the wife of defendant no. 2 Man Mohan Kumar Gadodia. He further claimed that the ancestral profession of the family was business, in which Bhuramal Gadodia inducted his son defendant no. 3, who after the death of Bhuramal Gadodia became the Karta of the joint Mitakshara family, of which plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 2 were the members. He also averred that by registered deed dated 9.7.1965 the said joint family alongwith the joint family of one Ram Pukar Singh purchased about 4 kathas of land in Muhalla Ahirpatti Motihari Town in the name of plaintiff no. 1 (son of defendant no. 3) and Raghvendra Kumar Singh (son of Ram Pukar Singh), in which the two joint families had half share (about 2 kathas) each.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that defendant no. 3 along, with plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 2 filed P.S. No. 194 of 1989 against the said Ram Pukar Singh and his sons for partition of their moiety share in the said property and for other reliefs, but the said suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Motihari, by judgment and decree dated 5.12.1993 holding that the suit lands were already partitioned between them and hence there was neither any unity of title or of possession nor there was any cause of action in the partition suit. He also averred that in the land falling in their share and possession, the joint family of defendant no. 3 had constructed a double storeyed house towards the south, in which ail the members of the joint family including the plaintiffs and the defendants reside. He also submitted that subsequently on 10.1.1969 defendant no. 3 as Karta of the joint family purchased 10 dhurs of land from Ram Pukar Singh in the name of defendant no. 2, which also came in possession of the joint family as all the said purchases were made out of the nucleus of the joint family fund created by the joint family business.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that subsequently with a view to usurp the entire joint family property, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 brought defendant no. 3 in their collusion and tried to take 10 dhurs of land in exclusive possession of defendant no, 2 and also tried to get the entire share of the joint family property of sale-deed dated 9.7.1965 measuring about 2 kathas from defendant no. 3 and for that purpose they got the aforesaid three deeds of gift dated 24.11.1998 and 6.11.2004 executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1 with respect to the aforesaid about 2 kathas of the joint fa