Heard the parties.

2. In the present appeal the appellants are challenging the order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the 7th Sub-ordinate Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in Title Suit No.977 of 2012 by which he has rejected the injunction petition filed on behalf of the appellants under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendants Ist party and 6th party i.e. respondent Ist set and 4th set from alienating the suit property and also from making any construction thereupon.

3. Plaintiffs are the appellants who have filed Title Suit No.977 of 2012 for confirmation of family arrangement dated 10.12.1956 declaring the sale deed dated 14.11.2012 executed by defendant Ist party in favour of defendant 6th party in respect of the suit property described in Schedule “Ga” of the plaint to be illegal conferring no right, title and interest on the vendee, also for partition of the property described in Schedule “Kha” of the plaint in between the plaintiffs and defendant 4th party besides certain other reliefs.

4. It appears from the plaint that Bhajan Sah was the common ancestor of defendant Ist party and defendant IVth party. He had four sons, namely, Jhulan Sah, Ramsharik Sah, Nanhku Sah and Butan Sah. Ram Sharik Sah and Butan Sah died issueless. Parmeshwar Sah was the son of Jhulan Sah and he had two sons, namely Devnath Sah and Baijnath Prasad are defendant Ist set and who are principal defendants. Nanhku Sah had four sons, namely, Ganga Dayal Sah, Yamuna Sah, Gorakh Sah and Dularchand Sah (plaintiff no.1) Yamuna Sah died issueless. Ganga Dayal Sah had one son, namely, Rajnath Prasad (plaintiff no.2). Gorakh Sah had three sons, namely Ramashray Prasad, Shyam Kishore Prasad (plaintiff no.3) and Raj Kishore Prasad (defendant no.7) and Sita Devi (plaintiff no.4) is wife of Ramashray Prasad. It has been claimed that on 10.12.1956 a Panchnama of the family was prepared. Parmeshwar Sah walked out from the family after taking his share. Ram Sharik Sah and Nanhku Sah remained joint from the earning of the family jointly acquired the property in dispute having an area of 1 Acre and 59 decimals on 16.2.1957 in the name of Ram Sharik Sah and and Kalicharan Ram came to the share of the plaintiffs, defendant IVth party as also defendant IInd party i.e. heirs of Kalicharan Ram. In the plaint it has been claimed that defendant Ist party Devnath Sah and Baijnath Prasad defendant Ist party have no concern with the joint family property of the appellants. As after separation from the branch by Parmeshwar Sah, his branch has no concerned with the land and wrongly and illegally executed the sale deed dated 14.11.2012 relating to 6 1/4th decimals of land of Plot No.1545 under Khata No.299 at Mauza Parki Yabar, P.S. Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur.

5. Defendant Ist party appeared and filed their written statement raising objection with regard to genealogy and claimed that predecessor in interest, namely, branch of Parmeshwar Sah is also entitled to the share in property described in Schedule “Kha” of the plaint. It has been claimed that Parmeshwar Sah has remained joint with his two brothers, namely, Ram Sharik Sah and Nanhku Sah, property purchases by the family in the year 1957 was also funded by Parmeshwar Sah. It has been claimed in the written statement that defendant Ist set has also the right and title with the land having an area of 1 Acre 62 decimals of land and further claimed that half of the land belongs to the family of Kalicharan and remaining half of the land mentioned in Schedule Kha belongs to the plaintiffs, defendant Ist set and defendant IV set and accordingly having a right to the extent of their shares in the suit property.

6. Injunction petition was filed. The court below has refused to grant injunction on the ground that nature of the relief that has been sought is for declaration of family arrangement dated 10.12.1956 be legal and valid, the claim of the appellants dependent on the sai