1. Heard Mr. N.N. Jha, learned counsel for the appellants. I have also heard Mr. A. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. The remaining respondents have chosen not to appear despite service of notice.

2. In this appeal the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case NBo.363/2015 arising out of Title Suit No.331/2015 vacating the order of temporary injunction granted earlier in favour of the appellants has been put under challenge.

3. It transpires from the record that the appellants as plaintiffs had instituted Title Suit No.331/2015 against the respondents herein in the court of learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati inter-alia praying for a declaratory decree; for partition of the suit land described in the Schedules A & B to the plaint; for permanent injunction and for other consequential relief. In the aforesaid title suit the plaintiffs had also filed Misc.(J) Case No.363/2015 praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land or from making any permanent construction thereupon. Although by the order dated 09.09.2015 the learned trial court had passed an ad-interim order of temporary injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo, yet, by the impugned order dated 16.05.2017, the said order was vacated. The grounds and reasons noted in the order dated 16.05.2017 leading to the vacation of the order of temporary injunction are as follows :-

“The petitioner’s documents reveal that the name of Late Memoru Das was struck off vide order dated 24-07-2013 in Misc. Case 13/11-12. Petitioner’s attempt to obtain mutation was also rejected vide order dated 20-07-2015 in Misc. Case 67/14-15. The petitioners have not challenged the said orders either before any higher forums or in any Court.

As Memoru Das is not found to the a pattadar in respect of land in dag Nos.470, 892 of patta no.391, the petitioners cannot lay stake of their claim of partition of lands of said dags. Situated thus, it can be inferred that the petitioners have not been able to show that a prima facie case exists.”

4. From a bare perusal of the pleadings contained in the plaint it appears that the suit is pending between the members of the same family having common ancestors wherein the plaintiffs are seeking declaration of their share in the ancestral property. Therefore, it is self-evident that the Title Suit is one coming within the domain of Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC.

5. It is trite law that in a suit filed under Order XX Rule 18 CPC where the court passes a decree for partition of property or for separate possession of the share therein, it would be necessary for the court to declare the rights of several parties interested in the property. To such extent, the plaintiffs and defendants in a partition suit would stand in the same pedestal. What would, therefore, be relevant for the court in a suit of this nature is to go into the question as to whether all the co-sharers are party to the proceeding and whether the ancestral property the subject matter of such suit. The entitlement of share of each party is to be determined on the basis of competing claim of each co-sharer. As such, in a suit of this nature, deletion of the name of a co-sharer from the land revenue record can hardly be a ground to non-suit the prayer for injunction made by a co-sharer in the ancestral property if he or she is otherwise entitled to a share in the family property.

6. In the present case, as noted above, the learned court below has not given any cogent reason for vacating the order of status quo save and except observing that the name of the plaintiffs/petitioners were struck off from the revenue record. Since the plaintiffs are praying for declaration of the right of their shareholders in the family property, in the event of alienation of the suit land during the pendency of the suit property, the same may cause prejud