Judgment : Both the petitions have arisen in this way: The petitioners are the sons of the first respondent, Ramankutty. According to the petitioners, their grand father Kochami had certain ancestral properties in Kerala. After the death of Kochami, his son Ramankutty purchased the suit property utilising the joint family funds. Later he had alienated the same to the second and third defendants in the suit before the trial court. The third defendant died and defendants 4 to 8 are the legal heirs of the third defendant. The petitioners herein instituted suit in O.S.No.625 of 989 in the file of the Sub Judge, Salem for partition and possession of their 2/3rd shares. After trial, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the alienation had been done long back by Ramankutty, and that Ramankutty had purchased the properties from and out of his separate funds and he had sold the same for discharge of antecedent debts, and family necessities. As against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the petitioners herein, who are the plaintiffs before the trial court, preferred appeal in A.S.No.126 of 1996 before this Court. 2. Pending appeal, the petitioners have filed C.M.P.No.4074 of 1998 for grant of ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating or altering the suit properties. 3. They have also filed Application No.15535 of 1999 for appointment of a receiver to take charge of the properties alleging that the properties are yielding huge income by way of rent and the respondents herein are appropriating the rents and if the petitioners herein succeeds in the appeal, they may not be in a position to recover the amounts appropriated by the respondents. They have also pleaded that for the purpose of management, reservation and improvement of the properties, a receiver has to be appointed. 4. They have also pleaded that for the purpose of management, reservation and improvement of the properties, a receiver has to be appointed. 4. In both the petitions, in their counter, the respondents contended that the alienation has been done long ago and the first respondent herein, Ramankutty, instituted a suit in O.S.No.285 of 1975 against alienees, that the suit was dismissed, that the appeal preferred against the dismissal of that suit was also dismissed by this Court and the Supreme Court have upheld the same in favour of the alienees in C.A.No.530203 of 1985, and thus having lost the claim, the first respondent has set up his sons to start a second line of litigation and that both the petitions lack bona fides. 5. Heard both sides, The cardinal principles for grant ad-interim injunction are as follows: .• (i) Whether the persons seeking temporary injunction have made out a prima facie case. This is sine qua non. • (ii) Whether the balance of convenience is in their favour, that is, whether it could cause greater inconvenience to them if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the other party would be put to if the injunction is granted. As to that, the governing principle is whether the party seeking injunction could be adequately compensated by awarding damages and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them. .• (iii) Whether the person seeking temporary injunction would suffer irreparable injury. It is, however, not necessary that all the three conditions must obtain, with the first condition as sine qua non, at least two conditions should be satisfied by the petitioners conjunctively and a mere proof of one of the three conditions does not entitle the persons to obtain temporary injunction. 6. In the instant case, the judgment passed by the trial court would go to show that the first respondent had alienated the property as early as 8. 1973. There had been litigation questioning the alienations and finally, the Supreme Court has upheld that the properties are self-acquired properties of the first respondent and the alienations were valid. Even after that, the petitioners have come forward with the instant suit in O.S.No.625 of 1989 seeking partition and they have lost before the trial court. Considering all these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners have established the prima facie title to the properties. Even after that, the petitioners have come forward with the instant suit in O.S.No.625 of 1989 seeking partition and they have lost before the trial court. Considering all these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners have established the prima facie title to the properties. When we consider the relative hardship, the very prayer for partition and possession sought for would clearly go to show that the alienees are in possession of properties right from 1973, i.e., for more than 26 years. They have not made any attempt to alienate the property all along. That being so, the apprehension of the petitioners that the respondents are about to alienate the properties appears to lack basis. Further, the injunction prayed for is to restrain the respondents from alienating the properties. When litigation is pending, any alienation is hit by lis pendens and therefore, no hardship would be caused to the petitioners if the injunction sought for is not granted. I hold that the petitioners have neither proved prima facie title, nor the balance of convenience to be in their favour. The injunction petition, i.e., C.M.P. No.4074 of 1998, has therefore to be dismissed. 7. So far as the relief sought for appointment of receiver is concerned, in Krishnaswamy v. Thangavelu , A.I.R. 1955 Mad. 430 His Lordship Ramaswami, J., referring to more than thirty earlier decisions, has rendered a classical judgment laying down the requirements for appointment of a receiver, which are as follows: “(1) The appointment of a receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the court. .(2) The court should not appoint a receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has a very excellent chance of succeeding in the suit. .(3) Not only must the plaintiff show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, but he must show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action and of his own right he must be reasonably clear and free from doubt. The elements of danger is an important consideration. .(4) An order appointing a receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a ‘de facto’ possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. The elements of danger is an important consideration. .(4) An order appointing a receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a ‘de facto’ possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. It would be different where the property is shown to be ‘in medio’ that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one, and (5) The Court, on the application made for the appointment, of a receiver, looks to the conduct of the party who makes the application and will usually refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from blame.” 8. Now, applying the cardinal principles to this case, it would appear that the petitioners have not made out any case. I have already pointed out that the petitioners have not established that they have a prima facie title, in other words prima facie case, or that they have not established that they have very excellent chance of succeeding in the appeal. I have already pointed out that the respondents are in possession of the properties for more than 26 years and litigation is also pending between the first respondents, his son and the alienees right from 1975, at no point of time, either the first respondent or the petitioners, who have instituted the instant suit during 1989 have alleged that the respondents are committing any acts of waste. They have also not shown that some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action has propped up. In the decision reported in Krishnaswamy v. Thangavelu , A.I.R. 1955 Mad. 430 it has been pointed out that element of danger is an important consideration. 9. I have already pointed out that admittedly, the respondents are in possession of the properties for the past more than 26 years. In other words, they are in de facto possession. It is not as if the property is in medio. When a party is in possession of the property for a long time, it would certainly cause greater hardship to that party, if his possession is disturbed. After all, if the petitioners are to win the appeal, they always have the right to recover the mesne profits. They can even proceed with against unallotted portion of the suit properties for recovery, if any sum is due to them. After all, if the petitioners are to win the appeal, they always have the right to recover the mesne profits. They can even proceed with against unallotted portion of the suit properties for recovery, if any sum is due to them. I am inclined to hold that the petitioners have not made out a case for appointment of receiver. 10. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed with cost of the respondents of Rs.1,000.