Short Note : The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration that he was the Bhumiswami of the suit lands, that his possession in that capacity over the suit lands be confirmed; that the sale-deed dated 15-1-1972 executed in favour of defendant No. 1 be declared to be void and ineffective against him, and that the defendant No.1 be restrained permanently from interfering in his possession over the suit lands. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff had filed application for an ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in his possession. The application was allowed by the trial Court and this order was confirmed by the first appellate Court. 2. Held: It is an admitted position that the plaintiff was a Co-Bhumiswami along with others and it is his share which has been transferred by the sale-deed. of course, the validity of the sale-deed is in question to the defendant No. 1 and no specific demarcated 'area has been sold to defendant No.1. From this it is clear that the plaintiff could not be in possession over any specific area and so could not deliver possession of any specific area to defendant No. 1. The possession of the plaintiff was a joint possession. The other Co-Bhumiswami having made no grievance that the defendant No.1 is interfering in their possession and is not entitled to have a joint possession with them. It is also of significant relevance to state that the sale is not challenged on the ground that no sale could be effected of an undivided share by the Co-Bhumiswami In this state of facts there is no 'prima facie case of the plaintiff for the applied injunction, prima facie case is an essential requirement for the grant of ad-interim injunction, that being absent in the instant case, only on this ground alone the impugned order of the lower appellate Court deserves to be set aside and the application for ad-interim injunction of the plaintiff deserves to be rejected. Revision allowed.