Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 8.7.96 passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st refusing to grant the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants restraining the defendants-respondents No. 1 and 2 from changing the physical feature of the suit property and also from transferring of any portion of the suit property or making any \ alienation with regard to the same till the disposal of the suit. 2. Admitted position is that Dr. Indra Prasad .died in 1939 leaving behind his three sons, namely, Dwarika Pd., husband of defendant No. 3 Smt. Mallika Devi, plaintiff No. 1 Kamla Pd. and defendant No. 1 Kumar Kalidas. Dwarika Pd. died in 1970 leaving behind his widow Smt. Mallika Devi (defendant No. 3 ). According to the plaintiffs their family is governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu law and possessed of movable and immovable properties detailed in Schedule-1 and 2 of the plaint. Each branch that is plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is entitled to one share in the suit property. The defendant No. 1 and his son defendant No. 2 being shrewd persons fraudulently created an award dated 25.3.82 wherein 70% of the total property was allotted to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and 30% of the property was allotted to two branches. Defendant Nos. Land 2 filed title suit No. 281/82 for making the award a rule of the Court. The plaintiffs appeared and contested the suit and on 9.12.93 the award was set aside and the defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed Misc. Appeal. No. 107/94 before the High Court which is pending. 3. Holding No. 215/87 is a double stories pucca house in the town of Patna. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 demolished the major portion of the same and negotiated with a builder to construct a multi-storied building. Plaintiffs filed an injunction petition in Misc. Appeal. No. 107/94 which was rejected by the High Court on 2.4.96 with an observation that the plaintiffs may seek remedy-by filing a suit and thereafter they filed a partition suit and also filed an injunction petition making the aforesaid relief. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim for grant of injunction. Their case is that three sons of Lt. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim for grant of injunction. Their case is that three sons of Lt. Indra Prasad separated in 1957 and in 1962 the e immovable properties consisting of four ancestral houses including the aforesaid holding were partitioned by metes and bounds and each of the branches are coming in possession of the houses allotted to their share and are realising the usufructs and rents there from. The holding in question has been allotted to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and they are dealing with the property. They inducted tenants and later on evicted them from the same building on the ground of personal necessity through the process of the Court. The said holding was in dilapidated and ruinous state and in spite of the repairings a part of which fell down in 1983 and the remaining portion was dangerous for the residents and the passers by, which required immediate constructions and the defendants have entrusted the construction work after demolition to M/s Bhasker Houses Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that the building was demolished and the construction works have started and the plaintiffs got a proceeding under Sec. 144 Cr P.C. started on the said holding which was dropped, the plaintiffs have no legal right to obstruct the development work and are not entitled to file partition suit especially when their earlier partition suit has been dismissed. 4. Both the parties filed their documents and thereafter the learned Subordinate Judge after having heard them has refused to grant injunction or the ground that the plaintiffs have neither prima facie case nor balance o convenience nor irreparable injury will be caused if the injunction is refused Plaintiffs case is of joint possession and if the plaintiffs would prove its case then they will get share in the newly constructed building. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the Court below ha; wrongly rejected the prayer of injunction, if the defendants 1 and 2 are allowed to make construction through the builder then the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury in the sense that he would get nothing even if it is held the he is entitled to share in the suit property. 6. The aforesaid submission has been combatted by defendant No. 1, a practising advocate, who has appeared in person. 7. 6. The aforesaid submission has been combatted by defendant No. 1, a practising advocate, who has appeared in person. 7. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records it is clear that the award was passed with regard to the joint family property in 1982 and the defendants filed a suit for making the award a rule o the Court which was not accepted and the award itself was set aside and the miscellaneous appeal is pending in this Court. It further appears that in 198: the plaintiffs filed a partition suit which was dismissed in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 32 of the Arbitration act. The plaintiffs prayer for injunction in miscellaneous appeal in this Court has also been rejected. The materials on the record further show that the building has already been demolished and it has been given to the builder to make construction on terms a contained in the agreement produced by defendant No. 1. In such a situation in injunction is granted at this stage restraining the builders from making constructions then that would not be for the interest of the parties. 8. The defendants have come out with a case of earlier partition and have asserted that they got the tenant evicted from the holding in question through the process of the Court which prima facie supports their case. 9. It is not necessary to give any finding about the respective claims of the parties but the fact is that the builder has already proceeded with the construction and in that view of the matter the defendant will suffer irreparable injury if injunction is granted in this case. Even if the plaintiffs are found to have share in the holding in question then they will not suffer in any way as they will get share in the property in question after re-construction of the building. 10. In my view, learned Subordinate Judge rightly in this case has refused to grant injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs. However, to safeguard the interest of the plaintiffs it is necessary to put the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on certain terms and conditions". The defendants No. 1 and 2 will not dispose of or encumber the portion allotted to them by the builder in terms of the agreement during the pendency of the suit without permission of the Court below. 1 and 2 on certain terms and conditions". The defendants No. 1 and 2 will not dispose of or encumber the portion allotted to them by the builder in terms of the agreement during the pendency of the suit without permission of the Court below. In case the Court below is inclined to grant permission then it will put certain terms and conditions in the way so that the interest of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 3 is protected. 11. With the aforesaid direction the appeal is dismissed.