JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 7.1.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kujang in I.A. No. 85 of 2014 in the matter of an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the property purchased by the appellant from the purchaser of the said land who had purchased it from the father of the respondents.

2. Facts necessary in the purpose of this appeal are stated hereunder:-

In order to avoid confusion and for better understanding, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the suit.

The respondents as the plaintiffs have filed the suit i.e. C.S. No. 94 of 2014 for partition claiming 1/5th share for each of them over the property described in the schedule of the plaint which in total comprises of land measuring Ac.4.58 decimals. A prayer remains for declaration of sale deed dated 3.7.2002 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 and the sale deed in turn executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 4 as void and for permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 4 from interfering in the possession of the land covered under the said sale deed as described in schedule-B of the plaint which forms a part of the total suit land.

The suit having been filed in the year 2014, later the plaintiffs filed the petition for issuance of temporary injunction against defendant no. 4 so as to restrain her from making any construction over the land that she claims to have purchased.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

Perused the plaint, written statement, petition for temporary injunction with objection as also the documents filed by the parties in the trial court. I have also gone through the order impugned in this appeal.

4. The plaintiffs’ case is that one Mani Tarai is their common ancestor and defendant no. 2 being his sole heir as his only son succeeded to the properties of Mani. The plaintiffs are the three daughters of defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 1 is the son of defendant no. 2. So these three married daughters have now filed the suit for partition of the properties said to have been inherited by their father, the defendant no. 2 from his father Mani Tarai. They claim to be entitled to 1/5th share each over the same. This defendant no. 4 is a purchaser of a portion of land from defendant no. 3 who had purchased it from defendant no. 2, the father of the plaintiffs. It is said that the property is ancestral undivided joint family property standing recorded in the name of defendant no. 2 after the death of his father Mani and there has never been any partition in metes and bounds. It is alleged that the defendant no. 3 being the second wife of defendant no. 1 i.e. brother of the plaintiffs fraudulently managed to snatch away a registered sale deed in her favour from defendant no. 2 and then she has ultimately transferred to defendant no. 2. The sales are said to be without consideration and delivery of possession. Alleging that the purchaser defendant no. 4 is trying to put up some construction over the purchased land, the petition has been filed for temporary injunction against her from entering upon the said land and making any construction over it.

5. The move has been resisted by the defendant no. 4 stating to have been in possession of the suit land by virtue of said purchase and to have also mutated the said land in her favour.

6. The trial court discussing the facts and circumstances of the case instead of passing an order of temporary injunction as prayed for has directed the parties to maintain status quo in so far as the said land is concerned. The defendant no. 4 thus being aggrieved by the said order has impugned the same in this appeal.

7. It is the settled position of law that in a suit where temporary injunction is prayed for, the party coming up with such prayer has to show that there remains the prima facie case; that the balance of conve