Short Note : After the death of Kabhruji the land was inherited by the applicant and non-applicants Nos. 6 and 7. The non-applicants Nos. 6 and 7 have transferred their share in the suit property to non-applicants Nos.1 to 5. The applicant, therefore, filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property. He also sought a declaration that the sale of the shares of non-applicants Nos.6 and 7 in favour of non-applicants Nos.1 to 5 is invalid and not binding on the applicant. The applicant also prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the non-applicants Nos.1 to 5 from disturbing the applicant's possession over the suit land. The applicant also filed an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary in junction. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, granted temporary injunction. The non-applicants Nos. 1 to 5 went in appeal against that order. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and vacated the order of temporary injunction. Hence this revision. Held: In the instant case, the finding of the Courts below is that the applicant alone is in possession of the suit land. The applicant has challenged the transfer of the shares of non-applicants Nos.6 and 7 in favour of non-applicants Nos.1 to 5 on the ground that it is in violation of the statutory provision contained in section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. In case the non-applicants succeed in establishing that they acquired a valid title in the suit land with respect to the shares of non-applicants Nos.6 and 7, they may rely on the legal fiction that they are in joint possession of the suit land along with the applicant and seek the appropriate relief for separate possession. But they cannot be allowed to take the law in their own hands and disturb the possession of applicant Champalal till the determination of the rights of the parties by the Court in the suit which is pending. When the lower appellate Court also concurred with the finding of the trial Court that the applicant was in actual physical possession of the land in suit, it illegally exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in vacating the injunction granted by the trial Court. Therefore, it is a case wherein this Court must interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 1976 M.P. Weekly Notes 203 & AIR 1973 S.C. 76 distinguished. Therefore, it is a case wherein this Court must interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 1976 M.P. Weekly Notes 203 & AIR 1973 S.C. 76 distinguished. AIR 1953 SC 487 relied on. Revision allowed.