JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - This appeal is directed against an order of injunction passed by the Trial Court directing the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Ordinarily the Court would not have interfered with an order of this nature but there are certain peculiarities in the present case which prevent us from endorsing the view of the trial court 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that an oral partition had taken place between the parties who happen to be own brothers and their family members and in pursuance of that oral partition the portion, which is shown in red colour in the four maps attached to the point were allotted to the share to the plaintiff. The green portion was allotted to the defendant and so far as the.blue portion was concerned, it was left joint since it was felt that the same can not be suitable partitioned. The defence case by the appellant was that in fact a partition had taken place. Initially it was oral but it was reduced to, writing soon thereafter. Substantially the defendant agrees that the portions were allotted in the manner as suggested by the plaintiff but there is a minor difference in respect of portion towards south east of the red portion which consists of one room and two Kotharis to the west and South of the said room in the basement, as well as on the ground floor. This portion is protruding towards the south of red colour portion into the blue portion. Regarding the rest of the allotment claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant has not disputed the same. 4. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the pleadings of the parties, at West the dispute related to that small portion towards the south-east and to the Kotharis adjoining it and as regards the remaining portion or the property, there was no dispute at all. It is urged that even if the plaintiff is to succeed ultimately, he will be entitled to be aforesaid portion in addition to what the appellant admits. It is urged that even if the plaintiff is to succeed ultimately, he will be entitled to be aforesaid portion in addition to what the appellant admits. It is contended that so far as the green portion is concerned the plaintiff himself has not raised any dispute about its allotment in favour of the defendant- appellant and such so there is no dispute at all regarding the same. On the basis of this, it is urged that no injunction order ought to have been passed restraining, the defendant-appellant from transferring any portion shown in green colour and from making alterations therein. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, were in entire agreement with the aforesaid submission and we agree that in view of the pleadings of the parties and the limited nature of dispute which exists between the parties no injunction ought to have been granted in respect of green portion of the property. As a matter of fact the trial court has only stated in the final part of the order that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the disputed property. The use of the word `disputed property', however can be subject of some confusion. Therefore we wish to clarify here that the injunction granted by the court below does not refer to the portion shown in green colour which admittedly belongs to the defendant-appellant. Accordingly we allow the appeal and hold that the injunction order passed by the court below does not refer to the green portion shown in the plain map belonging to the defendant-appellant. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of finally. In the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear the costs of this appeal.