1. By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 8.3.2007 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 45/07 setting aside the order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the IV Civil Judge, Class I, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 380-A/06 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for injunction and declaration against the respondents/defendants. As per the plaint averments the suit property is situated at Block Fanda, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal and the same is ancestral property of the petitioner and the respondents No.1 to 12 (defendants No.1 to 12) and they were in joint possession of it.

3. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants No. 1 to 12 without informing him and without his consent transferred the said joint property in favour of the respondent No. 14 (defendant No. 14) and executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 14. He accordingly, prayed for declaration of the said sale deed to be void and also prayed that the defendants No.1 and 14 be restrained from interfering in his possession. In the said suit the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of the Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction against the defendants No. 13 and 14. The defendant No. 14 submitted his reply to the application for temporary injunction and stated that the suit has been filed malafidely. He stated that the plaintiff having accepted the demarcation of the land done by the Tahsildar has no right to seek temporary injunction against him.

4. After hearing the parties on the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction the trial Court vide order dated 31.1.2007 allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants No. 13 and 14 from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff on the suit land. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant No. 14 preferred a misc. appeal. The said misc. appeal has been allowed vide impugned order by the appellate Court by setting aside the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the order passed by the trial Court being based on correct principles governing grant of temporary injunction, the same should not have been disturbed by the appellate Court in a slipshod manner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the property being ancestral and has been sold by the coparceners without the consent of the petitioner coparcener the sale deed is void. He submits that the parties are governed by Mitakshara Law and as such in view of Para 260 of Hindu Law by Mulla (Vol. 1) 17th Edition the alienation by the coparcener of his undivided interest without his consent and without legal necessity is not permissible. He further submits that the demarcation proceedings carried out by the Tahsildar having been conducted in violation of the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the petitioner's thumb impression having been obtained by misrepresentation cannot be a ground to upset the well reasoned order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner as has been done by the appellate Court. He contends that the respondents No. 14 who is builder if not restrained from raising construction of houses over the suit land, the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury and would invite multiplicity of the proceedings through prospective purchasers of houses/flats as may be constructed by the respondent/defendant No. 14.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No. 14 supporting the appellate Courts order submits that even assuming the petitioner to be a joint owner with other co-owners from whom the defendant No. 14 has purchased the entire property, the petitioner's share would be only 1/13 of the total property and which will b