Prima facie evidence of co-ownership is crucial for issuing a temporary injunction in property disputes.

1. This is plaintiff's miscellaneous appeal preferred under O.43, R.1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code of 1908) questioning the propriety of the order, dated 05.08.2017 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja in Civil Suit No.A67/2011 whereby the plaintiff's application for issuance of temporary injunction filed under O.39, R.1 & R.2 read with S.151 of the Code of 1908 has been rejected.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit claiming partition, separate possession, injunction and also for declaration that the registered deeds of sale executed by his father Madan Chand Keshari (defendant No.3), in favour of defendants be declared as null and void. It is pleaded in the plaint that the properties described in plaint Schedule 'A' were the self - acquired properties of his grandfather Ramdayal, who expired on 13.07.1966 and after his death, it was inherited by him along with his father Madan Chand Keshari, brother Dinesh Kumar Keshari, the defendant No.2 and mother Rukmini Devi. It is pleaded further that defendant No.3 Madan Chand, being a Karta of the family, has sold the properties described in plaint Schedule 'B' to different defendants without consent of the co - owners and even without any legal necessities as he left the house in 1998 and started living separately with one Tanabai alias Parvati Bai as his concubine and has sold the properties for immoral purposes. It is pleaded further that after the alienation of the plaint Schedule 'B' properties, the suit properties described in plaint Schedule 'C' alone are left and since defendant No.3 (Madan Chand Keshari) is trying to alienate the same for immoral purposes, therefore, the plaintiff has been constrained to file the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 03.08.2005.

3. It is pleaded further by way of amendment that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 has sold part of Kh.No.1021 admeasuring 1216 sq.ft. to defendant No.10 (Manish Kumar Gupta) by executing a registered deed of sale, dated 31.01.2014 of plaint Schedule 'C', the suit property and, likewise has sold part of Kh.No.1054/1 admeasuring 1444 sq.ft. to defendant No.11 (Madhusudan Shukla), and therefore, their sales are also required to be declared as null and void as the same were executed for immoral purposes by him.

4. Along with the aforesaid claim, the plaintiff has moved an application enumerated under O.39, R.1 & R.2 read with S.151 of the C.P.C., praying for issuance of temporary injunction against defendant No.10 while reiterating the averments made in the plaint that although the suit property, as mentioned aforesaid, was sold to defendant No.10, but possession has not been delivered to him and on the strength of the said registered deed of sale, he is trying to obtain the forcible and illegal possession of the said co - parcenery property.

5. Defendant No.3 Madan Chand Keshari, in his written statement and reply to the said application for grant of temporary injunction, has contested the aforesaid claim by submitting, inter alia, that at the time of death of his father Ramdayal, he alone was entitled to inherit the properties left by him as neither the plaintiff nor defendant No.2 were born and pleaded further that he has sold the suit property of his ownership to said defendant No.10 by executing a registered deed of sale in his favour while delivering the possession of it.

6. Defendant No.10 has contested the said application for issuance of temporary injunction by saying that defendant No.3 was the exclusive owner of the suit property and has obtained possession of it validly from him on the strength