Prima facie should not be understood as prima facie title.

Srinivasan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 455 of 1986, Sub Court, Thiruchirapalli, against an order dismissing their application for injunction restraining defendants 2 to 6 from described in schedules 'A' to 'D' in the plaint.

2. The appellants put forward the following case in the plaint: The suit properties described in schedules "A" to "E" of the plaint, excepting a few items, belonged ancestrally to one Sangalimuthu Kalathii Vendrar who died on 8-5-1986. He had two wives. The Junior wife died in 1964 and the senior died in 1984. The first plaintiff is the only daughter through the second wife while plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the daughters of his predeceased daughter through the first wife. The 1st defendant is another daughter through the first wife. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are the only heirs of the deceased propositus. The plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd share and the 1st defendant is entitled to the remaining l/3rd share. They are in joint possession of all the properties. Defendants 2 to 6 are the children of one Diraviyarn Ammal belonging to Koothadi caste who was a mistress of Sangilimuthu, but not exclusively kept. They are falsely claiming rights in the suit properties and are threatening to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. Even since the death of Sangilimuthu, the plaintiffs have been demanding of the first defendant to effect an amicable division who is taking up an evasive attitude. Sangilimuthu seems to have executed some sham and nominal documents with reference to E schedule properties which continued to be in his possession till his death. Sangilimuthu was personally cultivating the "A" schedule nanja lands till his death. Hence, a preliminary decree for partition into three equal shares and allotment of two such shares to the plaintiffs with a direction to the first defendant to account for the income realised by her subsequent to suit should be passed in addition to a decree restraining the defendant 2 to 6 from interfering with the plaintiffs and 1st defendant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

3. Along with the plaint, the appellants filed I.A. No. 648 of 1986 for an injunction restraining defendants 2 to 6 from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit "A" to "D" schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it was alleged that the said defendants were threatening to dispossess them and the first defendant since the previous day by force and unless injunction was granted they would be put to great loss and hardship.

4. The respondents herein who are defendants 2 to 6 filed a counter affidavit in the application stating that all the properties were the separate properties of Sangilimuthu and not his ancestral properties. The counter went on to state as follows: Diraviyam Ammal, the mother of the respondents, was also married by Sangilimuthu and that she was the second wife while the mother of the 1st plaintiff was the third wife. The marriage between Sangilimuthu and Diraviyam took place in 1932 in accordance with Hindu Law and custom. Sangilimuthu executed a settlement deed on 21-1-1963 setting the entire "E" schedule property on defendants 2 and 3. It was duly acted upon. On 18-4-1985, Sangilimuthu executed a will and registered it whereby 1 acre 691/2 cents in item No. 7, item No. 8 and item No. 12 of the "A" schedule were bequeathed to the 6th defendant. An extent of 4 cents in item No. 7 of "A" schedule was sold under a registered deed dated 17-4-1985 by Sangilimuthu to the third defendant. Thus items 7, 8 and 12 of "A" schedule did not belong to Sangilimuthu at the time of his death. The 4th defendant is actually residing in the house described as item 1 of "C" schedule. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are residing at Thanjavur only. Sangilimuthu was living with the third defendant who was always cultivating the lands. All the l