A temporary injunction can be granted in a suit for partition of joint property if the plaintiffs can show that they have a prima facie title to the properties, that they will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, that the balance of convenience is in their favour, and that the status quo must be maintained.

This is an appeal against the order of the Second Subordinate Judge, Manipur, dated 23-1-1967 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No.34 of 1966 in Title Suit No. 4 of 1963 on his file granting temporary injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from committing acts of waste on the suit home-stead ingkhol pending disposal of Title Suit No. 4 of 1963.

2. The respondent filed Title Suit No. 4 of 1963 in the lower Court against the appellant and some others for declaration that the partition of the plaint schedule property by the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer, Circle C and confirmed by the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the Chief Commissioner is illegal and for partition of the same into two equal shares between the plaintiffs on one hand and the defendant-appellant on the other hand and for delivery of possession of their half share to them.

3. The case of the respondent and the other plaintiffs is that the plaint "A" schedule property belonged to one late Kongbrailatpam Krishnachandra Sarma, that he erected a temple in the plaint "B" schedule property, that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the descendants of the first degree and plaintiff No. 5 is the widow of late Nadiachand Sarma, one of the sons of late Krishnachandra Sarma, that the defendant appellant is the other son of late Krishnachandra Sarma, that after the death of Krishnachandra Sarma, the defendant-appellant and Nadiachand Sarma enjoyed the properties jointly as co-owners and that after the death of Nadiachand Sarma the plaintiffs succeeded to his share in the said properties. It is also their case that certain proceedings were taken by the A. S. and S. O. Circle (C) for partition of the suit property, that they were confirmed by the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the Chief Commissioner, Manipur, but that they are void and illegal and that they do not bind the plaintiffs. So, they filed the suit for partition of the suit property and for recovery of their shares.

4. The appellant-defendant pleaded in his written statement that the partition effected by the A. S. and S. O. Circle (C) and confirmed by the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the Chief Commissioner are valid and binding on the plaintiffs.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed Judicial Misc. Case No. 34 of 1966 under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C. for temporary injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from damaging and otherwise wasting the suit property until the suit is disposed of. The Subordinate Judge granted the temporary injunction. Hence, the present appeal.

6. The contention of the appellants counsel is that the plaintiffs suit is in the nature of a suit for declaration of their title simpliciter and that no temporary injunction should have been granted. He relied on two decisions of this Court in Kongjengbam Babudhon Singh v. Hemam Romonyaima Singh, AIR 1962 Manipur 18 and Kangabam Biramangol Singh v. Madhabi Devi, AIR 1962 Manipur 55. In both the cases the suits were filed for mere declaration to title of the plaintiffs without prayer for any consequential relief like injunction etc. It was held that there was no "property in dispute" within the meaning of Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C. and that consequently neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was entitled to apply for temporary injunction to restrain the other party from interfering with his or her possession. But the present suit is of a different type. It was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of joint property. It is not a suit simpliciter for declaration that the orders for partition passed by the A. S. and S. O. Circle (C), confirmed by the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the Chief Commissioner are illegal and do not bind the plaintiffs. They pray for a decree for partition of the joint property. The provisions of Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C. are applicable to suitable cases for partition of joint properties. So, the above rulings have no application to the