JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The revision is against the order of injunction issued at the interlocutory stage sought at the instance of a co-owner against the third party purchaser from another co-owner. The Court observed that a co-owner cannot be put to prejudice by a purchaser from yet another co-owner to put up construction. The objection mounted by the purchaser-respondent before this Court is that our Courts have taken a consistent view that mere making of construction or improvement does not amount to ouster and by occupation of one co-owner, value or utility of the property is not diminished. Learned counsel refers to the judgments in Bachan Singh Vs. Swaran Singh, 2000 (3), RCR (Civil) 70, Amar Nath Vs. Tejinder Singh (P&H) 2010(3) CCC 499, Jai Pal Vs. Bharta, [2007(1) Law Herald (P&H) 668] : 2007 (2) RCR (Civil)179, Baldev Singh Vs. Sewa Singh 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 691, Tarsem Singh Vs. Parkash Kaur 2002 (1)RCR (Civil) 803, Bal Kirshan Vs. Ram Singh 2001 (3) RCR (Civil), 491 and M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. Jai Singh, [2006(1) Law Herald (P&H) 857] : 2006 (2) CCC 106. 2. I am afraid that I will not be in a position to accept the proposition of law advanced before me by the learned counsel to extend to a stranger purchaser. He cannot treat himself at par with the co-owner that is allowed to be in exclusive possession. A co-owner who is allowed by consent of parties to be in possession of some property that falls within his share, although the property remains undivided cannot be equated to a third party purchaser who enters upon the property to put up construction. Non-alienating co-owner is entitled to seek for a restraint and force the purchaser to sue for general partition before altering the status quo. (see Gajana Vishnu Gosavi Vs. Prahash Nanasaheb (2009) 10 SCC 654 ). 3. The relief of injunction granted by the Court below does not conclude rights of parties, it is fundamental precept of law that at an interlocutory stage under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the Court shall be concerned about the prima facie case of the plaintiff and that the property shall be allowed to be retained in status quo. The plaintiff’s claim to such a co-ownership is not in dispute. The plaintiff’s claim to such a co-ownership is not in dispute. On the other hand, the argument is that a minor share holder cannot seek to restrain a purchaser from a co-owner to enjoy the same way as his vendor did. The law that allows for a purchaser to step into the shoes of his vendor will enjoy the same right as the vendor has. If the purchaser seeks to do any act such as when he wants to construct, he shall not be permitted to do if any other co-owner objects to it till rights of parties are predicated which each party is entitled to. It is conceded by the counsel that partition proceedings are pending before competent authority. The conclusion of the proceedings will indeed give the purchaser the right which he convasses now. 4. The challenge to the injunction order cannot therefore be sustained as of now. The civil revision is therefore, dismissed. ------------------