Prima facie title and possession, balance of convenience, and the importance of seeking permanent injunction in the original plaint are crucial factors in granting an injunction.

With the consent of the parties, this appeal as well as I.A.NO.3441/2012 were heard together. In I.A.NO.3441/2012 the respondent no.13 seeks vacation of the interim order dated 11th April, 2012 passed by this Court.

2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 03.03.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division-VII, Jamshedpur in Title(Partition) Suit no.105/2011 whereby learned court below has rejected the plaintiff-petitioner's prayer for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., restraining the defendant nos.3,5,13 and 14 from transferring he suit property by constructing a building or ownership thereon, till the disposal of the suit and in the meantime the defendant nos.3,5,13 and 14 be directed to maintain status quo in respect to the property of the plaint.

In the said suit, the plaintiff has sought a decree for declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit property (Schedule B property to the plaint) and in alternative if the court finds that there was no partition amongst the vendors of plaintiffs and other co-sharers then a preliminary decree may be passed for partition of the suit property (Schedule 'A' property to the plaint) with declaration that the plaintiffs have got joint interest thereon to the extent of their share being the purchasers of the Schedule 'B' property to the plaint. Plaintiffs also prayed that a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner may be appointed to demarcate the suit property described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint and a final decree for partition be passed embodying the report of the Pleader Commissioner. Plaintiffs have also prayed for cost of the suit.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs' case, in brief, is that the properties described in Schedule 'A' property to the plaint originally belonged to and was held by one Harnam Singh, since deceased, who happened to be the common ancestor of defendant nos.1 to 12. That after the death of the said Harnam Singh and subsequently, on death of his wife, Schedule 'A' property of the plaint devolved upon his four sons namely, Gurmukh Singh (since deceased), Preet Pal Singh, Pratap Singh, Deedar Singh (since deceased) and two daughters, namely, Swarn Kaur and Harjeet Singh and each of them became joint owners of the Schedule 'A' property having 1/6th share thereon. The defendant nos.2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Late Deedar Singh and the defendant nos.9 to 12 are the legal heirs of Gurmukh Singh. The further case of the plaintiff is that the said four sons and two daughters amicably partitioned the Schedule 'A' property of the plaint amongst themselves and the defendant nos.6,8 and 9 to 12 sold their shares to the plaintiffs by means of a registered deed of Sale no.1857 dated 10.03.2011.

4. On notice, defendants appeared and except for defendant no.7 rest of the defendants filed their written statements. Defendant nos.2 to 5, 13 and 14 filed written statement contesting the suit and claimed that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the said property. Contesting defendants no.3 and 5 in their show cause have stated that the suit is not maintainable in law as well as on facts. That the petition has not been properly verified as required under law. That the suit filed by the plaintiffs itself has got no merit and same is liable to be dismissed with cost as such the petition filed by plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction is liable to be rejected out right. That in the original plaint the plaintiffs have not sought for grant of permanent injunction as such the petition filed by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction is liable to be rejected on this score alone. That in the plaint filed by the plaintiff they have sought for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the property described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint and have filed a fixed court fee which is not permissible in law.

5. On merits defendants no.3 and 5 have denied that