Judgment Jaswant Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 15.9.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sonepat and dated 4.6.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonepat, whereby the application of the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for ad interim injunction against respondent No. 1/defendant Smt. Kailash Devi, from alienating the suit property or creating charge over it in any manner, whatsoever, during the pendency of the suit, has been dismissed. Further prayer is for grant of interim injunction restraining the said respondent for alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 2. The petitioners-plaintiffs, who are still minors, have filed a suit through their mother Smt. Rajesh wife of Pardeep as next friend against the respondents-defendants Smt. Kailash Devi and their father Pardeep Kumar for declaration with joint possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Their case is that their father/respondent-defendant No. 2, Pardeep Kumar who was recorded as owner of the suit property could not have sold suit property (15 kanals 16 marlas) to respondent/defendant No. 1 Smt. Kailash Devi as per sale deed No. 4458 dated 4.11.2003 without consideration and legal necessity since the said suit property was ancestral and they constituted a Joint Hindu family as a Karta. 3. It was considered before the Courts below by the respondent/defendant No. 1 Smt. Kailash Devi that she is a bona fide purchaser and had acquired possession with ownership rights by paying consideration amount of Rs. 10.52 lacs to the owner-Pardeep Kumar-respondent/defendant No. 2. It was further contended that neither land in dispute is ancestral in nature nor petitioner-plaintiffs constituted a coparcenery with vendor-Pardeep Kumar, their father. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper book. 5. Both the courts below have found that it is a conceded fact that respondent/defendant No. 2-Pardeep Kumar was recorded as owner in possession of the land in dispute in the record of rights on the day of execution of the sale deed by him in favour of respondent/defendant No. 1 Smt. Kailash Devi i.e. On 4th November, 2003 and further the vendee Smt. Kailash Devi was put in actual possession of the suit land. The Courts below have further, prima facie, opined that whether the property in dispute is ancestral property and whether sale was executed with legal necessity and consideration is a matter of fact which can be proved only after the parties have led their respective evidence. The Courts below have further found that the ancestral nature of the property is not prima facie established and the evidence already available on the record goes to show that the vendee Smt. Kailash Devi had paid a huge amount for acquiring ownership right of the property and as such petitioner-plaintiffs do not have a strong prima facie case in their favour and even the balance of convenience does, not favour their cause. Learned courts below have further prima facie found that vendee Smt. Kailash Devi shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in case an embargo is placed upon her rights to sue the lawfully acquired property in the manner she likes. 6. In view of the above and the discretion exercised by learned courts below, no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Hence the present civil revision is dismissed.