The conditions for granting an injunction are cumulative and do not exist independent of each other. Even if the plaintiff has a prima facie case, that is not sufficient to obtain an injunction unless the other two conditions, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, also exist.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, J. - In a suit for partition and for relief u/s 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 (in short, the 'Act') prayer was made for injuncting opposite parties herein, defendants in the suit, from entering upon the suit land. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jajpur rejected the prayer and vacated ex parte order of injunction passed earlier. In appeal, learned Addl. District Judge, Jajpur upheld the order.

2. The case of parties in short is as follows :

Plaintiff has filed T. S. No. 85 of 1993 for partition and for relief u/s 4 of the Act. His case is that one Madi Pani had two sons viz, Nidhi and Tila. Nidhi had two sons viz, Damodar and Karuni. Tila had a son named Shyama. Plaintiff-petitioner is the grand-son of Shyama. The opp parties in the petition filed under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the "Code)", in the suit, were purchasers from the co-sharers-defendants. The suit land stood recorded in the names of Shyama, Nayana and Alana and the latter two being sons of Karuni and Bansi, son of Damodar. Bansi died issueless and his interest devolved upon Nayana. As per the genealogy given in the plaint, Alana also died issueless. Plaintiff and Nayana had equal shares in the suit property. Benga, widow of Nayana and his son Niranjan had sold their interest in the suit land in favour of present opp. parties. So also another son Birabhadra and daughter Latika sold their shares in their favour. Petitioner and heirs of Nayana are possessing the suit land by amicable arrangement, but without any partition by metes and bounds. The opp parties herein after their purchase tried to enter upon the suit land which necessitated filing of the suit and prayer for injunction. The purchasers opposite parties herein took the stand that heirs of Nayana were in exclusive possession of their specific shares and they sold their interest relatable to specific possession in their favour. The suit plot No. 395 which is about 300 links from the suit plot No. 399 is no longer a homestead and was used for agricultural purpose. Plot Nos. 398 and 399 were homestead lands. Their vendors were in separate possession of the Western half of those plots. Opp. party No. 1 purchased the Northern portion and opp-party No. 2 purchased the Southern portion.

3. Learned Civil Judge was of the view that since the ownership of petitioner's ancestors was not in dispute and successors of recorded owners i.e., one branch of petitioner and other branch of Nayana were in possession of the suit land as per their share by amicable arrangement. Sale deeds dated 27-5-1982 and 6-2-1987 contained reference to these aspects. In these premises, it would not be proper to restrain opp. parties from going upon the suit land. Learned Addl. District Judge held that in view of materials reflecting joint ownership, and sale deed executed by co-sharers reflecting ownership and possession, it was not desirable to injunct opp. parties, in the peculiar circumstances, prayer for injunction was rejected.

4. According to Mr. S. Ch. Ghose, learned counsel for petitioner, purchasers being strangers should not be allowed to invade privacy of petitioner and even if vendors of opp. parties were co-sharers, option was available to the petitioner for purchase, and those aspects have not been kept in view of Courts below. Learned counsel for opp. party No. 1 supported orders of the Courts below.

5. While granting injunction. Court has to be satisfied about existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Conditions are cumulative and do not exist independent of each other. Even if it is accepted that one party has a prima facie case that would not be sufficient to get an order of injunction unless two other conditions i.e., balance of convenience and irreparable loss exist. The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the Court. While exercising t