Judgment :- SRINIVASAN, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order restraining the appellant from entering into the property at door No. 2, Thiagappa Mudali Street, described in Schedule ‘C’ to the plaint till the disposal of the suit. The respondent in this appeal is the plaintiff at whose instance the order of injunction has been passed by the learned judge. 2. The suit is one for partition filed by the respondent in which he claims that he is entitled to 1/4 share in the suit properties. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are also the sons of the first defendant. The fourth defendant who is the appellant before us, has purchased ‘C’ Schedule property from the first defendant which is of an extent of 494 sq. ft. It was part of the house described in ‘A’ Schedule property. It was purchased by her under a sale deed dated 13.7.19 92 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are coparcenary properties and the father has no right to alienate the same by himself and in any event, the alienation in not binding on the plaintiff and other sons. On the other hand, it is the contention of the appellant that the sale in her favour is supported by necessity and it is a binding transaction. Apart from that, it is also contended by the appellant that the property is not a coparcenary property of the father and it is only bis self-acquired property in which the sons have no interest during the life time of the father. Further it is contended that the property purchased by the appellant has been delivered to her on the date of sale deed and she is in execlusive possession of the same. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant that the property purchased by her has a separate entrance from the main road and she can have ingress and egress to the property without in any way d isturbing She enjoyment of the family members who are in occupation of the main house. The appellant has also produced a patta issued to her pursuant to the sale dead in her favour. The appellant has also produced a patta issued to her pursuant to the sale dead in her favour. She has produced a document to show the portion purchased by her as described in ‘B’ Schedule to the sale deed viz. No. 2, part, old No. 19, thiagappa Mudali Street, II Lane, Kilpauk, Madras-10 was assessed by the Madras Corporation. She has produced tax demand carde to show that assessment has been made in her name and she is paying the property taxes. 3. The learned judge has taken the view that the question whether the property is joint family property or self-acquired property of the first defendant and the question whether the sale in favour of the appellant is binding on the plaintiff and other sons, have to be gone into only at the time of final disposal of the suit. On the question of possession, the learned judge has rejected the documents produced by the appellant taking the view that those documents will not prove her actual possession. According to the learned Judge, a document having been obtained by her as a sale deed which stands in her name, and the father-first defendant being the head of the family would have helped her to get the other documents in her favour. Consequently, the learned judge granted injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff against the appellant herein. 4. We find that the reasoning given by the learned judge cannot be supported all. Admittedly, the father has 1/4 share in the property. Even assuming that the property is a joint family property, the father will have his share, if the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the partition suit. There is every chance in equity of the first defendant getting the property sold in favour of the appellant allotted to him as it is less than 1/4 share. The total property described in ‘A’ Schedule is an extent of one ground and 837 sq. ft. The property that is sold is of an extent of 494 sq. ft. and therefore it is much smaller than 1/4 share of the total property. 5. Further the plaintiff has failed to prove prima facie that either he or his family is in possession. The sale deed in favour of the appellant contains a specific separate recital that possession has been delivered to the appellant. ft. and therefore it is much smaller than 1/4 share of the total property. 5. Further the plaintiff has failed to prove prima facie that either he or his family is in possession. The sale deed in favour of the appellant contains a specific separate recital that possession has been delivered to the appellant. In the description of the properties in Schedule ‘B’ to the sale deed, it is stated that the property is bounded by walls on all the four sides and the southern wall is a common wall dividing the same from the main property. There is a recital that the southern wall should be kept in common throughout. The appellant has produce d a plan to show that the property has a separate entrance from the main road. There is a specific averment to that effect in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant before the learned judge in O.A. No. 959 of 1992. The averment was not challenged by the plaintiff by filling a reply affidavit. Apart from that, the appellant has also produced patta and tax demand cards which show that the appellants ownership and possession have been recognised by the authorities. Those documents are sufficient at this stage to prove prima facie that possession is with the appellant. 6. As the appellant is in possession, there cannot be any injunction against the appellant till the disposal of the suit restraining her from entering into the property viz. door No. 2, Thiagappa Mudali Street, Kilpauk. We do not find any justification to restrain the appellant from enjoying the portion of the property purchased by her from the first defendant. Hence the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned judge passed O.A. No. 949 of 1922 dated 17.2.1994 is set aside. O.A. No. 959 of 1992 is hereby dismissed. The respondent/plaintiff shall flay the cost the appellant in this appeal. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/-.