The main legal point established is the necessity of consent of all co-sharers for division of jointly owned property and the limited powers of the appellate court to interfere with the trial court's discretion.

1. Challenge in this appeal is the order dated 08.05.2013 passed by the learned 11th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anand below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.57 of 2013 whereby, the learned trial Judge rejected the injunction application Exh.5 preferred by the plaintiffs – appellants herein.

2. The parties to the present proceedings would be referred to as per their original status in the plaint for convenience.

3. Filtering unnecessary details, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are from the same family lineage. Before 30.06.1965, Mr. Vasantlal Patel (HUF) through its Karta – Mr. Vasantlal Patel was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.2/4913 corresponding to Survey Nos.225,226/1 and 226/2 of Cambay, District: Anand admeasuring 14372.40 sq.mtr. (for short, the ‘suit land’). According to the case of the plaintiffs, as per sale deed dated 30.06.1965, entered into between the said HUF through its Karta – Mr. Vasanalal Patel, 3/4th right, title and interest in the suit land was transferred, sold and conveyed in favour of Mr. Balubhai, Mr. Shantilal, Mr. Natwarlal and Mr. Vinodchandra. It is the case of the plaintiffs that said HUF -Mr. Vasantlal Patel retained 1/4th undivided share, right, title and interest in the suit land with itself. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one of the essential terms and conditions of the said sale deed was that family member/purchaser of the HUF property was not entitled to sell, gift, mortgage or incumber his or her respective portion of share in the suit land to any outsider before providing preemption right to the other co-owners to buy the same. As Mr. Vinodchandra died on 27.01.1992 at Bombay, who was holding 1/4th undivided share in the suit land and according to his last Will dated 20.05.1991, deceased – Mr. Vinodchandra bequeathed all his right, title and interest to the suit property in equal portion in favour of the present plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for ½ share out of deceased – Mr. Vinodchandra’s 1/4th undivided share, right, title and interest in the suit land. Thus, it is the case of the plaintiffs that each plaintiff has 1/8th undivided share in the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are permanent resident of Bombay and in the year 2013, they learnt from certain reliable sources that certain undivided share of the suit land has been sold in favour of various third parties and, therefore, the plaintiffs approached the concerned revenue authorities and found that 1/5th portion of undivided suit land was sold in favour of the defendant No.8 through public auction conducted by D.R.T., Ahmedabad. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.8 sold the said 1/5th undivided share, right, title and interest in the suit land in favour of defendant Nos.9 to 11 on 05.11.2012 by way of two different Registered Sale Deeds admeasuring 2244 sq.mtr. and 374 sq.mtr. respectively. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant Nos.9 to 11 have tried to identify specific portion in the suit land and have further placed wire fencing in the suit land. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiffs that it is necessary for the protection of the rights of the plaintiffs to the suit land, defendant Nos.9 to 11 are required to be restrained by way of an order of injunction that they may not use, occupy and possess the suit land exclusively without taking prior consent of the plaintiffs and other co-owners and defendant Nos.9 to 11 are also required to restrain from creating third party right in any manner till final disposal of the suit. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that defendants have no right to develop any part of the suit land without first having it partitioned by metes and bounds so as to define their share and the share of the plaintiffs in the suit land. On these broad facts, the plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction and also pa