JUDGMENT : Raghubir Dash, J. - This appeal is against the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 221 of 2011 arising out of C.S. No. 395 of 2011 disallowing the prayer for interim injunction restraining the Respondents from making any construction over the suit property as well as creating third party interest therein till disposal of the suit. The Appellant is the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the opposite parties in the same order before the learned trial court. 2. The Appellant-petitioner has filed the suit for partition and declaration that the sale deeds executed by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) in favour of defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are defendant Nos. 6 and 7 in the suit. Defendant No. 8 is not a party either in the I.A. or in the present appeal) have no binding effect on him. The Appellant-plaintiff's case in the suit, in short, is that the suit schedule property is ancestral property, the common ancestor being late Banamali Das, who died leaving behind two sons, i.e., Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and three daughters, namely, Laxmipriya (the Appellant), Angurabala (defendant No. 3) and late Khirodabala, who has died leaving behind defendant Nos. 4 and 5 as her legal heirs. It is alleged that after the death of the common ancestor his two sons (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2), practising fraud by suppressing the fact that the common ancestor had left behind three daughters, mutated and converted the suit schedule property in their names and after the mutation both of them executed three sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 alienating the suit property wherein the plaintiff has got 1/5th share. In all/oil the sale deeds Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have falsely stated that they are the only legal heirs of late Banamali Das. Much after the execution of the sale deeds, they approached the Appellant-plaintiff on 30.6.2010 and in the garb of an agreement to sale, they took a deed of relinquishment from her. When the purchasers made arrangement for undertaking construction work over the suit land, the Appellant protested but the purchasers claimed to have purchased the property. Much after the execution of the sale deeds, they approached the Appellant-plaintiff on 30.6.2010 and in the garb of an agreement to sale, they took a deed of relinquishment from her. When the purchasers made arrangement for undertaking construction work over the suit land, the Appellant protested but the purchasers claimed to have purchased the property. On enquiry the Appellant came to know that her two brothers by practising fraud first sold the suit property and then obtained a deed of relinquishment from her. Alleging that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are going to make construction over the suit land, she filed the I.A. seeking for interim relief. Respondent No. 1, who has filed objection to the I.A., without disputing that the Appellant is one of the daughters of Late Banamali Das has contended that Angurabala Mohanty, another daughter of late Banamali Das and Alekha Chandra Baral, husband of late Khirodbala Baral, a daughter of late Banamali Das, have executed registered deed of relinquishment on 30.12.2009 in respect of their interest in the properties left by late Banamali Das in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but the Appellant, who had agreed to execute such deed of relinquishment could not do so as she was then staying outside. However, on 30.06.2010 she executed a registered deed of relinquishment in respect of her share in suit property in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In view of such relinquishment, it is contended, the Appellant has no subsisting legal right to be enforced in the suit and thus, there is no prima facie case in her favour. Thus, it is claimed that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 there has been a settlement, with the intervention of village gentries, effecting division of the properties and separate allotment thereof between the two brothers. Thus, it is contended that the suit for partition as laid is not maintainable. It is further contended that between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 there has been a settlement, with the intervention of village gentries, effecting division of the properties and separate allotment thereof between the two brothers. Thus, it is contended that the suit for partition as laid is not maintainable. Respondent No. 1 has further pleaded in his written statement that Respondent No. 2 has already sold his allotted share creating third party interest therein and Respondent No. 1 has entered into a collaboration-agreement with one Harish Kumar Shivani for construction of a multi-storied residential complex over a portion of the suit land and the latter has invested huge sum of money for the purpose of construction of the complex. With regard to the Appellant's execution of the deed of relinquishment, Respondent No. 1 has contended that she is not an illiterate lady and having full knowledge that she was going to execute a deed of relinquishment in favour of Respondent No. 1, voluntarily executed and registered the deed. 3. Respondent-opposite parties 2 to 4 have filed their counter contending, inter alia, that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 having purchased a portion of the suit land from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have completed a substantial part of construction over the suit land. So any kind of restraint order against them will put them to grate inconvenience and they would suffer irreparable injury. 4. Learned lower court observed that since the Appellant-petitioner has executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, she is now estopped to challenge the same in any legal forum. On her plea that the deed has been fraudulently obtained by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned trial court has observed that the same shall be decided during the trial. With that observation the trial court has opined that the Appellant-petitioner has no prima facie case. Learned trial court's further observation is that since Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are carrying on construction over the suit land by investing huge amount of money for commercial purpose, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Respondents and in the event any restraint order is made, Respondents would sustain irreparable injury. Accordingly, the prayer for interim injunction has been refused. 5. 1, 3 and 4 are carrying on construction over the suit land by investing huge amount of money for commercial purpose, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Respondents and in the event any restraint order is made, Respondents would sustain irreparable injury. Accordingly, the prayer for interim injunction has been refused. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant argues that since the Appellant has pleaded that the deed of relinquishment has been obtained fraudulently from an old illiterate lady without letting her know anything about its contents, learned lower court while disposing of the interim application should not have observed that the Appellant is estopped to challenge the deed in the legal forum. The trial court's observation, it is argued, that plaintiff has got no prima facie case in the sense that she has not made out an arguable case in her favour to be raised during the trial is also erroneous. It is further contended that since Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have executed sale deeds in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 much prior to the execution of the impugned deed of relinquishment, in such a situation, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to have got legal right to transfer the Appellant's share to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is further submitted that since Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by practising fraud converted the status of the suit land and also sold the same to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before obtaining the so called deed of relinquishment it cannot be said that the Appellant has no prima facie case in her favour. It is submitted that it the Respondents are allowed to proceed with the construction work, then the Appellant shall suffer irreparable injury and grate deal of inconvenience to retrieve her share in the suit property in the event she succeeds in the suit. 6. On behalf of the Respondents, learned counsels have argued supporting the impugned order and contending that it any order of restraint is passed against the Respondents, then it would cause irreparable injury to them, who are carrying on construction by investing huge amount of money for commercial purpose. 7. It is not in dispute that late Banamali Das left behind two sons and three daughters and Appellant is one of the daughters. 7. It is not in dispute that late Banamali Das left behind two sons and three daughters and Appellant is one of the daughters. It is also not specifically denied that while seeking for conversion of the status of the suit land in OLR Case No. 321 of 2010 and seeking mutation in their names vide M.C. No. 418 of 2010, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 suppressed the fact that late Banamali Das had three daughters. They obtained the order of conversion as well as mutation behind the back of the Appellant. It is also not in dispute that while executing the sale deed in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have suppressed the fact that there are also other co-shares in respect of the suit property. The purchasers also do not appear to have taken due care to find out whether late Banamali Das had left behind any other heirs. In this background, the plea taken by the Appellant that her brothers fraudulently obtained a deed of relinquishment from her cannot be out-rightly rejected at this stage to further proceed to say that she, having executed the deed of relinquishment, is estopped to challenge the same. No doubt, she has put signature on the deed of relinquishment but mere putting one's signature is not an indication that he or she is literate. She has taken the stand that she is an old illiterate lady and one deed of relinquishment has been obtained from her by way of misrepresentation and fraud. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not raised a substantial question which needs investigation and decision on merits. Therefore, she has got a prima facie case in her favour. The Respondents assert that they are proceeding with construction of residential complex for commercial purpose. The Appellant has filed the suit for partition. In the event she ultimately succeeds in the suit, she will definitely suffer a grate deal of inconvenience as well as irreparable injury, if construction work for commercial purpose is allowed to proceed. Therefore, it is considered necessary to restrain the opposite parties from making further construction or creating any third party interest by making further alienation till disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the F.A.O. is allowed. Parties are directed not to change the status quo of the suit land till disposal of the suit. Therefore, it is considered necessary to restrain the opposite parties from making further construction or creating any third party interest by making further alienation till disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the F.A.O. is allowed. Parties are directed not to change the status quo of the suit land till disposal of the suit. Parties to bear their own cost. Final Result : Allowed