1. This revision raises an interesting point.

2. Shiv Kumar, who is petitioner before me, brought a suit against his own father and his two brothers seeking a permanent injunction for restraining them from alienating the property in dispute, which was alleged to be joint Hindu family property. The allegations in the plaint were that in connivance with his two other sons, Dina Nath and Sathya Pal, his father, Mool Chand, was alienating the property in dispute without any valid legal necessity or any benefit of the family and the estate and that the alienation was being effected to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff.

3. The ancestral nature of the property was denied by the father, who claimed that the property was his self-acquired. Nothing, however, seem to have been said by him to the effect that he was alienating the property for legal necessity.

4. A temporary injunction was also claimed by the plaintiff preventing his father and his brothers from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit. This was granted by the trial Court, but the lower appellate Court, apart from going into the prima facie merits of the case, whether the property was ancestral or not,