Binod Kr. Roy, J.

The Defendant 1st party is the appellants. They challenge an order passed at the instance of the plaintiff respondents 1st party herein restraining the appellants from selling any suit properties which includes 1 decimal of land in which he claims to have raised a hut after the falling down of the house in plot no. 21 appertaining to Khata No. 58 and 80 decimals of land in plot no. 22 appertaining to Khata No. 58 of Mauja Nawada, Arrah P.S. Nawada, District Arrah.

2. The plaintiff alleged that the land in question in the old survey stood recorded in the name of Ramnath Lal son of Kashi Nath Lal, who alone was its, owner and has been coming in possession; that in the year 1931, the ancestors of the plaintiff and defendant no. 6 took the land in which there was a mango orchard for watching it on a condition that they share its fruit and they started appropriating jointly the fruits; that Ram Nath Lal in plot no. 21 constructed a room in which there was also a will which was given to the ancestor of the plaintiff and defendant no. 6 for the purpose of having a watch of the land in question; that about 3-4 years thereafter, the trees in the ordered were cut one alter another and as a result of which the land became culturable in which the plaintiffs and the defendants no. 1-6 started growing vegetables and started sharing the income of the produce with Ramnath Lal half-and half and also utilising the vegetable; that in the year 1950-55 Ramnath died issueless and thereafter the plaintiffs and defendant no. 6 continued to cultivate the land in question; that defendant nos. 1 to 5 tried to forcibly cultivate the land in question by calling themselves to be the legal representatives of Ramnath Lal, which however, was not allowed; that on rumours the plaintiffs have heard that the aforementioned defendants are bent upon to create certain documents showing them to be the legal representatives of Rarnnath Lal given by misleading the Court, that they are in possession of the properties described in Schedule 1 for the last several years openly and without any obstruction and thus they have acquired title by adverse possession thereof; that they have also learnt that the defendant-6 and defendant nos. 1 to 5 dispute not having any title or possession are talking with some people to sell out the properties which is in their possession.

3. The plaintiff also filed an application on 19.11.87 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 to 5 from selling the suit properties alleging therein that they want to take possession forcibly in the land in question after creating certain forged and fabricated documents and are talking with Ramakant Pandey of village Narainpur to sell the same illegally. They also asserted that there is prima facie case, balance of convenience is in their favour and that by sale the plaintiff will sustain an irreparable injury.

4. Out of defendant nos. 1 to 5, defendant nos. 1 to 3 filled their show cause on 3.12.1987 asserting therein that their ancestor Kashi Lal bad four sons Shital Lal, Rajnath Lal, Jhaman Lal, Jhumak Lal; that Shitai Lal had four sons Gaya Lal, Radha Lal, Santlal and Rambelash Lal; that Gaya Lal had a son Barmesbwar Lal and Barmeshwar Lal had three sons Lakshman Lal, Mahendra Lal, and Bangali Lal; that Radha Lal had five sons Kanhaji Sahai @ Kanhaiyaji, Kameshwar Prasad, Kamta Prasad, Bijal Kumar and Jaikumar; that Santlal and Ram Belash Lal died one after another; that Shital Lal, the only brother of Rajnath Lal, though alive bad died about one year ago and since Jhaman Lal and Jhumak Lal had already expired, the entire properties of Rajnath Lal was inherited by his nephew Radha Lal, who also got, it mutated; that Raj Nath Lal died in 1325 Fasli and after his death the entire properties came to his nephew Radha Lal; that apart from the land in question Rajnath Lal held land