JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---The defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 118/92 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda, have filed this Appeal being aggrieved by an interim order passed by the lower Court on 1st November, 1993. By the impugned order, the appellant was restrained from alienating the suit property. It also ordered that the plaintiffs, namely the respondents herein could enjoy the house which is included in the subject-matter of the suit. 2.It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent Rama Gauda that he was the original tenant of the suit property and he was residing with his family in the suit property alongwith his wife and children. Since Rama Gaude died, the plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of Rama Gaude and the plaintiff No. 2, the second son of the deceased Rama Gaude. Defendant No. 1 who is the widow of the deceased Gurudas Gaude, the first son of Rama Gaude, became entitled to the property. The defendant No. 2 is the minor daughter of Gurudas. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that on an understanding with the landlord the property was agreed to be purchased in the name of the plaintiff No. 1, widow of Rama Gaude. It is further alleged that contrary to this understanding, Gurudas while he was alive, played a fraud on the other plaintiffs and took the documents in his name though the entire consideration has been contributed by all the members of the family. It is apprehended by the plaintiffs that the suit property is going to be alienated by defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs also apprehend that also they are going to be dispossessed from the suit property. 3.The Court below, presumably, having regard to the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants has granted the application for injunction partly. 4.The learned Counsel for the appellants argued before me that the lower Court has gone wrong particularly after entering into a finding that the plaintiffs have not established prima facie title of the property and therefore committed a grievous error in granting an injunction. I do not think the lower Court has gone wrong, as argued by the Counsel for the appellant. I do not think the lower Court has gone wrong, as argued by the Counsel for the appellant. The lower Court has rightly pointed out that a genuine dispute has been raised by the plaintiffs in this case as to the title and the right of exclusive possession of defendants No. 1 and 2 to the suit property. Therefore, it is only just and proper that till the suit is finally disposed of it is necessary to pass an order restraining the transfer of the property in the interests of justice. 5.Then the learned Counsel for the appellants argued that there is no justification for making a direction allowing the plaintiffs to enjoy the suit house. I see valid reasons to interfere with this direction made by the Court below. According to the appellants, the plaintiffs are not residing in the house, in which case, the defendants cannot have any grievance against the direction made by the Court below. If the injunction is not granted by the Court, considering the close relationship between the parties, the grandmother of the defendant No. 2 will have to be restrained once and for all even to visit the property and to see her granddaughter. Therefore, in the interests of justice, I think that no interference is called for by this Court in that direction also. Moreover, the direction is only for enjoying the house which will not in any way effect the rights of the appellants. 6.In the result, I find no reason to interfere in the order under appeal in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The Appeal is dismissed. 7.In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.