JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order of the Second Subordinate Judge, Manipur, dated 23-1-1967 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No.34 of 1966 in Title Suit No. 4 of 1963 on his file granting temporary injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from committing acts of waste on the suit home-stead ingkhol pending disposal of Title Suit No. 4 of 1963. 2. The respondent filed Title Suit No. 4 of 1963 in the lower Court against the appellant and some others for declaration that the partition of the plaint schedule property by the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer, Circle C and confirmed by the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the Chief Commissioner is illegal and for partition of the same into two equal shares between the plaintiffs on one hand and the defendant-appellant on the other hand and for delivery of possession of their half share to them. 3. The case of the respondent and the other plaintiffs is that the plaint "A" schedule property belonged to one late Kongbrailatpam Krishnachandra Sarma, that he erected a temple in the plaint "B" schedule property, that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the descendants of the first degree and plaintiff No. 5 is the widow of late Nadiachand Sarma, one of the sons of late Krishnachandra Sarma, that the defendant appellant is the other son of late Krishnachandra Sarma, that after the death of Krishnachandra Sarma, the defendant-appellant and Nadiachand Sarma enjoyed the properties jointly as co-owners and that after the death of Nadiachand Sarma the plaintiffs succeeded to his share in the said properties. It is also their case that certain proceedings were taken by the A. S. and S. O. Circle (C) for partition of the suit property, that they were confirmed by the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the Chief Commissioner, Manipur, but that they are void and illegal and that they do not bind the plaintiffs. So, they filed the suit for partition of the suit property and for recovery of their shares. 4. The appellant-defendant pleaded in his written statement that the partition effected by the A. S. and S. O. Circle (C) and confirmed by the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the Chief Commissioner are valid and binding on the plaintiffs. 5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed Judicial Misc. 4. The appellant-defendant pleaded in his written statement that the partition effected by the A. S. and S. O. Circle (C) and confirmed by the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the Chief Commissioner are valid and binding on the plaintiffs. 5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed Judicial Misc. Case No. 34 of 1966 under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C. for temporary injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from damaging and otherwise wasting the suit property until the suit is disposed of. The Subordinate Judge granted the temporary injunction. Hence, the present appeal. 6. The contention of the appellants counsel is that the plaintiffs suit is in the nature of a suit for declaration of their title simpliciter and that no temporary injunction should have been granted. He relied on two decisions of this Court in Kongjengbam Babudhon Singh v. Hemam Romonyaima Singh, AIR 1962 Manipur 18 and Kangabam Biramangol Singh v. Madhabi Devi, AIR 1962 Manipur 55 . In both the cases the suits were filed for mere declaration to title of the plaintiffs without prayer for any consequential relief like injunction etc. It was held that there was no "property in dispute" within the meaning of Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C. and that consequently neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was entitled to apply for temporary injunction to restrain the other party from interfering with his or her possession. But the present suit is of a different type. It was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of joint property. It is not a suit simpliciter for declaration that the orders for partition passed by the A. S. and S. O. Circle (C), confirmed by the Director of Settlement and Land Records and the Chief Commissioner are illegal and do not bind the plaintiffs. They pray for a decree for partition of the joint property. The provisions of Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C. are applicable to suitable cases for partition of joint properties. So, the above rulings have no application to the facts of the present case. Vide also Kanhayalal v. Surajmal, AIR 1952 Ajmer 51 (2). 7. The learned Subordinate Judge did not properly set out the well known principles of law which have to be considered before issuing a temporary injunction pending disposal of a suit. So, the above rulings have no application to the facts of the present case. Vide also Kanhayalal v. Surajmal, AIR 1952 Ajmer 51 (2). 7. The learned Subordinate Judge did not properly set out the well known principles of law which have to be considered before issuing a temporary injunction pending disposal of a suit. The plaintiffs have to make out, firstly, that they have got a prima facie title, that there is a serious question to be tried in the suit and that on the facts before the Court there is a probability of the plaintiffs being entitled to the reliefs asked for by them. The title of the plaintiffs to a moiety of suit properties is not in dispute. The appellant-defendant inter alia supports the order of the A. S. and S. O. and pleads that his order for partition is valid and binding on the plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs have got prima facie title to the properties. Secondly, the plaintiffs must establish that they will suffer irreparable injury which is a material one which cannot be adequately compensated for by damages. The allegations of the petitioners supported by the affidavit of the respondent herein, show that the appellant committed several acts of waste on and damage to the properties. He admittedly demolished his existing residential house on the ground that it was damaged on account of floods and is now making preparation to construct another permanent house at some other place in the suit property. He removed bricks from the temple situate on the plaint "B" schedule land and the plaintiffs allege that he is using the said bricks for the construction of a parapet wall. It appears that the appellant shifted his residence to the "Mandop" and is indulging in unholy and irreligious acts of cooking fish etc. in the temple. The plaintiffs allege that the appellant and his agents have cut away the plants and bamboos growing on the northern side of the suit ingkhol. The appellant cannot be permitted to waste away or damage the suit properties pending disposal of the suit. Thirdly, the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs, who are likely to suffer substantial mischief if the injunction is refused, when compared to the mischief which might be caused to the appellant if the injunction is granted. Fourthly the status quo must be maintained. 8. Thirdly, the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs, who are likely to suffer substantial mischief if the injunction is refused, when compared to the mischief which might be caused to the appellant if the injunction is granted. Fourthly the status quo must be maintained. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiffs did not pray for any permanent injunction and that, therefore, they are not entitled to any temporary injunction. This argument may hold good in a case falling under the provisions of Rule 2 of Order 39, Civil P. C. But, the present case is governed by Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C. So, the order of the Subordinate Judge is correct, though he did not discuss the points, which have to be borne in mind by the Court when it issues temporary injunction. 9. The Subordinate Judge is, however, directed to dispose of the suit without delay as it is a very old one. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.