ORDER S. Samvatsar, J. Petitioner by Shri R.R. Chandrawade, Advocate. Respondents No. 1 to 3 by Shri B.I. Mehta, Advocate. Respondent No. 4 by Shri Anand Pathak, Govt. Advocate. Heard. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 7-3-2006 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 22/2005, whereby the Appellate Court has confirmed the order dated 16-3-2005 passed by 7th Civil Judge Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 61-A/2005. Thus, two Courts have rejected the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC refusing to grant injunction. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a suit in respect of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 522/1, 967, 970/1, 966, 1145, 1152, 1418/1/99 total area 05.509 hectares situated at village Rau Tahsil and District Indore alleging that land in question is his ancestral property and he has 1/4th share in the property, therefore, the defendant No. 1 has no right to alienate the property. He along with plaint filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code, which is rejected by two Courts below. Hence this petition. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property being an ancestral property his father has no right to alienate the property, as he has 1/4th share in the property. In such circumstances according to him father be restrained from alienating the property. In support of his contention, he has relied on judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust vs. Baldevdas, 2005(1) MPLJ 447. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held that normally when an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC is filed, the Court should restrained other party from alienating the property or changing the nature of the property. There is no dispute about this proposition of law. But in the present case, the two Courts have found that present plaintiff has no right in the suit property. Admittedly, the property in question is agricultural property, which is recorded in the name of respondent No. 1 as Bhumiswami and respondent No. 1 is still-alive. As per section 164 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the property devolves on the death of Bhumiswami on his heirs and not during his life time. Admittedly, the property in question is agricultural property, which is recorded in the name of respondent No. 1 as Bhumiswami and respondent No. 1 is still-alive. As per section 164 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the property devolves on the death of Bhumiswami on his heirs and not during his life time. The Apex Court in the case of Sheela Devi and Others Vs. Lal Chand and Another, has held that a son who is born prior to commencement of 1956 Act would be entitled to his share of the ancestral property. In that the Apex Court has held that a son who has born after 1956 is not entitled to his share. Similar view is taken by this Court in the case of Smt. Chandrakanta and Another Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others, . In view of this, the two Courts, have rightly held that plaintiff has no right in the suit property. In such circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed