Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 14.3.1996 passed by Sub-Judge, 4th, Bettiah, in Title Suit No. 128 of 1995. 2. In this appeal both sides were heard. 3. It was submitted by the appellants lawyer that the order of injunction passed by the lower court is vague and inexecutable. Moreover, the suit was filed by the daughter-in-law of common ancestor Bam Surat Prasad Tiwary who had left behind one son who is the plaintiffs husband (plaintiff no. 2) and two daughters whose heirs are defendants 2nd set. Defendants 1st set are the purchasers from defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiff no. 1 claimed ail the suit property on the basis of an unregistered deed of will executed by her father- in-law in her favour. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that Ram Surat Prasad Tiwary had partitioned his land with his son and he executed a deed of will on 11.9.72 in respect of schedule-1 property of the plaint. The plaintiffs came in possession of 3 bigha 12 Hatha and 18 dhurs of land as covered by the will. After the death of her father- in-law on 10.7.74 the daughters of Ram Surat Prasad Tiwary did not come in possession of the suit land because they were settled in their sasural, but defendants 4 and 5 executed sale deed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 of the suit land and, so, the plaintiff apprehended disturbance to her possession from defendants 1st set. So, she had filed a petition for injunction. The court granted the injunction. 4. However, the operative part of the impugned order does not state in clear terms as to do what and as to omit what the respondents were restrained from. Unless this is clearly specified in the impugned order, it would be difficult for the respondents to carry out the injunction order. The defendants 2nd set who are admittedly daughters of Ram Surat Prasad Tiwary, will have share in their fathers property because the common ancestor died in the year 1974. It was the claim of the defendant-respondents that they had come to own their fathers property on the basis of partition. But it was not pleaded whether they had been allotted with the suit property. It was the claim of the defendant-respondents that they had come to own their fathers property on the basis of partition. But it was not pleaded whether they had been allotted with the suit property. So, the main question in the case was as to who was the owner of the suit property and if at all me defendants 2nd set who are the descendants from the daughters of the common ancestor were allotted suit property on partition. The respondents before this Court, who are the defendants 1st set appears to be the strangers to the family of the plaintiffs 2nd set and they were, perhaps, residents of the State of U.P. So, of-course, the moot question to be decided by the lower court was whether the suit property was allotted to plaintiff no. 1 on partition or whether it was allotted to the defendants 2nd set who had right to sell the suit land to the strangers or not. Of course, the facts cannot and could not be decided without evidence, but the courd had to see whether the plaintiff no. 1 had prima facie case and balance of convenience and the irreparable loss would occur to the plaintiff if no injunction is granted. After taking into consideration these three principles, the court had to give a clear and definite order of restraint directed against the respondents and specifying as to what was exactly the order of restraint. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from vagueness and want of exactitude. Hence, it cannot be allowed to stand. 5. This Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The matter shall go back to the lower court to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law after hearing the parties afresh.