A. K. GOHII, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under Order XL1ii Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the code") against the order dated 28-3-2002 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 36-A/99 (New No. 47-A/2002) by Fifth Additional District Judge, Ujjain, whereby it rejected plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the son of the deceased daughter of late Shri laxmanrao Telang has filed a suit for declaration, partition, possession and permanent injunction against the Respondents. It is also not in dispute before me that Respondent No. 1 defendant is the son of late Shri Laxmanrao telang and the appellant/plaintiff is the son of the sister of Respondent No. 1. It is also not in dispute before me that the suit property has not been partitioned earlier between the legal heirs of late Shri Laxmanrao Telang. It is also not in dispute that late Shri Laxmanrao Telang has not executed any Will in favour of any party. It is also not in dispute before me that the entire suit property is in possession of defendant No. 1 who is the son of late Shri Laxmanrao Telang. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff also filed an application seeking temporary injunction against defendant No. 1 and other co-defendants that they be directed not to dispose of or alienate the suit property and be directed to maintain status-quo. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant/ plaintiff has failed to prove his prima-facie case in the suit and he is also not in possession over the suit property. Therefore, injunction cannot be granted in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff, against which the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this miscellaneous appeal. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri A. S. Garg, learned senior Advocate instructed by Shri O. K. Saxena, for appellant; Shri R. S. Chandrawade, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1: and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 6. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri A. S. Garg, learned senior Advocate instructed by Shri O. K. Saxena, for appellant; Shri R. S. Chandrawade, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1: and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 6. ( 4 ) SHRI Garg, learned counsel for appellant drew my attention on the two admissions; firstly, that the plaintiff is the son of deceased daughter of late Shri Laxmanrao Telang and the defendant No. 1 is also the son of late Shri laxmanrao Telang; and secondly, the partition has not been taken place between the parties uptil now. ( 5 ) SHRI Chandrawade, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supported the impugned order and submitted before me that the trial court has rightly rejected the injunction application as the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit property and there is no prima-facie case; balance of convenience; and the principle of irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit property. Shri Chandrawade placed reliance on a decision of Surpeme Court in the case of Da/pat Kumar and another v. Prahlad singh and others, in which it has been held that injunction cannot be granted unless it is proved that the plaintiff is having prima-facie case-, balance of convenience; and the principle of irreparable injury in his favour. The Court should also consider the possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should maintained in status quo. an injunction would be issued. It is further held 1. AIR 1993 SC 276 . that the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of an interim injunction pending the suit. Shri chandrawade further submitted that though the defendant No. 1 is not disturbing the property but an injunction cannot be granted against the co-owner, co-sharer in the property, and he has also cited the decisions reported in Gendalal Rathore v. Beena Bai-mahendra singh v. Virendrasingh Majruddin v. Qamaruddin and Suresh Prasad Gupta v. Basudeo Prasad and another ( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the pleadings as well as the documents filed by the parties and the case law cited above. I am of the view that the appellant/plaintiff has established his prima-facie case in this case for getting the relief of temporary injunction in a limited form. It is not in dispute before me that the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit property but it is also not in dispute that he is one of the legal heirs of late Shri Laxmanrao Telang and also having interest and right in the suit property. Therefore, he has every right to file a suit for partition and possession for his own share. The share is still to be determined by the trial court after adjudicating the claims of the parties. The purpose of granting injunction is to preserve the status-quo between the parties. What is required to the plaintiff at this stage to make out an arguable case before the trial court If the plaintiff has made out a case that he is entitled for share in the suit property then in such case he cannot be thrown out by the trial Court simply on the ground that the suit property is not in possession of the plaintiff. In such cases what is material is the relief sought by the parties. The plaintiff is not claiming any right about the enjoyment of the property against co-owner defendant No. 1 and is also not claiming any mandatory injunction either about the possession over the property or about the destruction of the property. Plaintiff is simply seeking that until his right is determined by the trial Court, the defendant'should be directed to maintain status-quo on the property and he should not alienate the same during the pendency of the suit. Admittedly it is the settled law for grant of injunction that all the three pillers for grant of temporary injunction, say. prima-pacie case: balance of convenience; and the principle of irreparable injury and the principle that the plaintiff is seeking the relief with clean hands and he has made out an arguable case and if all these principles co-exist in a case, then the Court may accept the prayer for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaitniff. In the instant case the plaintiff is seeking simply an injunction against the defendants to maintain the status-quo with regard to the property in dispute. At this stage he is only required to make out an arguable case. In the instant case the plaintiff is seeking simply an injunction against the defendants to maintain the status-quo with regard to the property in dispute. At this stage he is only required to make out an arguable case. The trial Court in the impugned order has accepted that he is the son of the deceased daughter of late Shri Laxmanrao Telang and he is entitled to claim the share in the property of her mother from mother's brother. For obtaining such an injunction, the question of possession is not the decisive factor because the suit is for declaration, partition, possession and also for permanent injunction. This contention of learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted that no injunction can be granted against co-owner. If all the limbs for the grant of injunction are satisfied, an injunction can also be granted aginst co-owner for preserving and maintaining the status-quo of the property in dispute. Thus on consideration of the aforesaid facts of the case and also the principles of law for granting injunction, 1 find that the trial Court has not property appreciated the facts of the 'case and the law and has wrongly rejected injunction application. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY in view of the foregoing discussions, this appeal is allowed. The