ORDER G.S. Solanki, J. 1. Being aggrieved by order dated 7.1.2010 passed by District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 15-A/2009, Appellants have preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts of the case in short are that Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Defendants/ Appellants. Defendants/Appellants have also filed counter claim for permanent injunction. Thereafter, Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed an application (IA No. 1) under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and Defendants No. 3 and 4 also filed (2) applications (IA Nos. 2 and 3) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, which were disposed of by learned trial Court by common impugned order dated 7.1.2010. 3. The averments of aforementioned applications are that Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 pleaded that they are the title holder of disputed land situated at Gram Samalwadakala, Tehsil Itarsi and they are also in possession thereof and cultivating the land continuously . They further pleaded that Defendant No. 1/Appellant No. 4 is uncle of the Plaintiffs. According to them, he, by practicing fraud, got mutated name of Defendant No. 2/Appellant No. 5 Mohd. Ishtiyaq in the revenue records. They further pleaded that Defendants No. 1 and 2 executed the illegal sale deed of 2.206 hactare out of Khasra Nos. 339 and 343 and 2.207 hactares out of Khasra Nos. 341, 343/2 and 381 in favour of Defendant No. 4/Appellant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3/Appellant No. 1 respectively. It has been further pleaded that on the basis of aforementioned sale deeds, Defendants No. 3 and 4 with cooperation of Defendants No. 1 and 2 tried to take possession of disputed land from Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3, therefore, they pray for temporary injunction against them. 4. Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 remained absent before the trial Court and trial Court proceeded ex-parte against him. 5. Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 4 denied the facts alleged by Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 and pleaded that being a paralytic and handicapped person, he called Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 to look after his property and provide assistance in agricultural operations. 5. Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 4 denied the facts alleged by Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 and pleaded that being a paralytic and handicapped person, he called Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 to look after his property and provide assistance in agricultural operations. He further pleaded that since he has no issue, therefore, he got mutated the name of Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 Mohd. Ishtiyaq in revenue records and thereafter with cooperation and consent after oral partition, he sold 10.91 acres of land out of his share of 11.33 acres of land to Respondents No. 3 and 4. On the basis of this reply, he has prayed for dismissal of application filed by Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3. 6. Defendants No. 3 and 4/Appellants also filed applications for grant of temporary injunction against Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3. According to them, they are the bonafide purchaser of disputed land from Defendants No. 1 and 2/Appellants No. 4 and 5, who are the title holders thereof and their names were mutated in revenue records. They have further pleaded that they also got mutated the names in revenue records and they sow Soyabeen in the disputed land and crop of Soyabeen is being looked after by their husbands. They further (4) pleaded that Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 threatened them to dispossess and to cut the crops of Soyabeen, therefore, they pray for temporary injunction against Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3. 7. Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 denied the averments made in the application filed by Defendants No. 3 and 4 and pray for dismissal of the same. 8. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the documents and affidavits filed by the parties arrived at the conclusion that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is more in favour of Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 as comparison to Defendants No. 3 and 4/Appellants, therefore, the trial Court dismissed the applications filed by Defendants No. 3 and 4/Appellants and allowed the application of Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 thereby restraining Defendants No. 1 to 4/Respondents No. 4 and 5 and Appellants are restrained to interfere in the disputed land. Being aggrieved the instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the Appellants along with the prayer of grant of temporary injunction in their favour. 9. Being aggrieved the instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the Appellants along with the prayer of grant of temporary injunction in their favour. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that Appellants are the bonafide purchaser of the disputed land. Abdul Baki Defendant No. 1/Appellant No. 4 has 50% share in the whole property and name of Defendant No. 2/ Respondent No. 5 Mohd. Ishtiyaq had been mutated by (5) mutual settlement and with the consent of Abdul Mahboob and Mohd. Mahmood (Plaintiffs) in the revenue record on 3.7.1994. He has further submitted that Plaintiff No. 1 Abdul Mahboob appended his signatures on mutation order along with Abdul Baki, therefore, Plaintiffs are stopped to challenge the title of Appellants and their vendors Mohd. Ishtiyaq and Abdul Baki. He has further submitted that Plaintiffs did not challenge the validity of said mutation order dated 3.7.1994 by Civil Suit as well as they have not challenged the consent of their father in mutation order. He has further submitted that Appellants have prima facie case in their favour, despite this fact learned trial Court committed error in holding the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3, therefore, learned Counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the Appellants. 10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondents has submitted that being a Mohammedans, parties are governed by Mohammedans Law and as per Section 41 of Mohammedans Law, Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 4 Abdul Baki has the title in disputed property as tenant in common in specific shares. He has further submitted that there was no partition between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1, therefore, without effective partition, (6) Defendant No. 1 has no right to execute any sale deed. He has further submitted that all mutation proceedings have been challenged by Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 in revenue Courts. Name of Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 was mutated behind the back of Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 and by mere mutation in revenue records, no right, title or interest has been accrued in favour of Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 Mohd. Ishtiyaq. He has further submitted that Defendant Nos. Name of Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 was mutated behind the back of Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 and by mere mutation in revenue records, no right, title or interest has been accrued in favour of Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 Mohd. Ishtiyaq. He has further submitted that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2/Appellants No. 4 and 5 executed the sale deed of better land in comparison to land left and in this way they caused extensive damage to Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3. He has further submitted that on the basis of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case trial Court rightly found the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 and granted temporary injunction against Appellants. In this way he supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court and has prayed for dismissal of appeal. 11. I have perused impugned order dated 7.1.2010 and the documents filed by the respective parties. It is not in dispute that both the parties are governed by the Mohammedans Law. Amended land record register dated 3.7.1994 shows that on the request of deceased Abdul Mahboob and Defendant No. 1 Abdul Baki, name of Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 Mohd. Ishtiyaq has (7) been added along with the Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2/Respondent No. 1 and 2, thus the disputed property presumed to be in joint possession of Plaintiffs/Defendants No. 1 and 2. Amended land record dated 10.1.2009 bears only thumb impression of Defendant No. 1 Abdul Baki but signatures or thumb impression of Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2/Respondents No. 1 and 2 are missing. In these circumstances, the trial Court rightly refused to draw inference in regard to mutual partition. 12. A bare reading of Section 41 of Mohammedans Law regarding devolution of inheritance makes it clear that heirs succeed to the estate as tenants-in-common in specific shares means Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2/Respondents No. 1 and 2 along with Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 4 Abdul Baki succeed to a definite fraction of every part of the estate left by deceased Farid Ahmad son of pre deceased Bibi Khatun. In these circumstances without any effective partition between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1, Defendants No. 1 and 2 have no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Defendants No. 3 and 4/Appellants. In these circumstances without any effective partition between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1, Defendants No. 1 and 2 have no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Defendants No. 3 and 4/Appellants. Thus, in my opinion trial Court did not commit any illegality in refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of Defendants No. 3 and 4/Appellants, despite filing the registered sale deed and affidavits in regard to purchase of disputed land and cultivating thereof. 13. Considering the aforementioned position in Mohammedans Law, without effective partition Defendants No. 1 and 2 are not entitled to alienate the disputed property and this fact will be decided by the trial Court after recording the evidence. Thus, the Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 and 2 have all the three points in their favour viz; prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 14. On perusal of last paragraph of impugned order dated 7.1.2010, it reveals that trial Court restrained Defendants No. 1 and 2/Respondents No. 3 and 4 along with Defendants No. 3 and 4/Appellants to interfere into the joint possession of the Plaintiffs, despite the fact that trial Court itself found that Defendant No. 1 has the joint possession with the Plaintiffs on disputed property. Since Defendants No. 1 and 2 are the recorded Bhumiswami along with the Plaintiffs as per the amended land record dated 3.7.1994, in these circumstances, injunction ought to have been granted only against Defendants No. 3 and 4/ Appellants. 15. In view of the aforesaid, dismissal of injunction applications filed by Appellants/Defendants No. 3 and 4 (IA No. 2 and 3) is hereby affirmed and injunction order dated 7.1.2010 is modified to the extent that only Defendants No. 3 and 4/Appellants are restrained to interfere in the (9) joint possession of Plaintiffs/Defendants No. 1 and 2, without following the legal procedure. 16. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this appeal. Advocates' fee as per schedule or certificate, whichever is a less.