( 1. ) THIS appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 15th July, 2003 passed by the Ist Additional district Judge, Rewa in Civil Suit No. 63-A/03 whereby the plaintiffs/respondent No. 1 to 3s application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure code (hereinafter referred to as the code) for grant of temporary injunction has been allowed.

( 2. ) IN short the facts are: The plaintiffs/respondent No. 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant No. 1/appellant and defendant No. 2/respondent No. 4 challenging the sale deed dated 29-5-2003 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 on various grounds viz it was executed by defendant No. 2 without receiving any consideration from the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 while executing the sale deed was in the state of intoxication and was unable to understand the contents of the document, the property was ancestral and was sold without there being any legal necessity nor it was sold for the benefit of the estate. The plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code praying therein that till disposal of the suit, temporary injunction be granted restraining the defendant no. 1 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property.

( 3. ) THE defendant No. 2 who is father of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and husband of No. 3 by filing the reply supported the case of the plaintiffs. ( 4. ) DEFENDANT No. 1 denied the plaint averments and replied the

application for temporary injunction. He stated that the defendant No. 2 in his full senses, executed the sale deed on receiving consideration of it. While executing the sale deed the defendant No. 2 was not in drunken state. It was further stated that the suit property is self acquired property of the defendant no. 2. The defendant No. 1 further stated that in pursuance of registered sale deed he is in possession of the suit property.

( 5. ) THE Trial Court on the basis of the documents, affidavits and averments of the parties came to hold that the plaintiffs have made out a case for temporary injunction and accordingly allowed the application on the ground that the property being joint family property of plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2, the same could not have been sold by defendant No. 2 alone. The Trial Court relying on Khasra entries of the year 2002-2003 recording the possession of defendant No. 2 held that the possession was not handed over to the defendant no. 1 in pursuance of the sale deed.

( 6. ) IN this appeal, Shri Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 has contended that the Trial Court has erred on facts as well as on law in allowing the application of the plaintiffs. According to him, there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 2 delivered the possession of the suit property to the defendant No. 1 vide document which is a registered sale deed. He further submitted that the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 are sons and plaintiff No. 3 is wife of defendant No. 2 and the suit has been filed in collusion to deprive the appellant/defendant No. 1 from enjoying the fruits of the registered sale deed of the suit land which he purchased after paying valuable consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/ -.

( 7. ) SHRI Harish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 4 has supported the impugned order and has contended that since the property was joint family property the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 alone in favour of defendant No. 1 is not binding on the plaintiffs. He further contended that the defendant No. 2 is a habitual drinker and taking advantage of his ill habit, the defendant No. 1 got the sale deed executed in his favour. No consideration was paid by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2. It was thus, prayed that the plaintiffs having prima facie case, the impugned order is perfectly legal.

( 8