JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. This appeal arises from order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge, Cuttack in I.A. No. 45 of 2013, in which parties to the suit, i.e., C.S. No.43 of 2013 were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the schedule properties of the I.A. until further orders. 2. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed Civil Suit bearing CS No.43 of 2013 for a preliminary decree of partition, permanent injunction to restrain the defendants (appellants herein) from entering upon the suit property and undertaking any kind of construction thereon and from alienating any part thereof or creating any charge over the suit property in any manner. 3. The suit property relates to Khata No.3, Plot No.410, Mouza: Cuttack Sahar Unit No.10, Tahasil: Cuttack Sadar, measuring an area of Ac.0.159 decimal from out of total area of Ac.0.714 decimal. Plaintiffs’ case in brief is that suit schedule ‘B’ property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and stands recorded in the name of their grandfather, namely, late A.N.Singhdeo in the ROR published in the year 1983. Said A.N.Singhdeo died on 01.12.2003 leaving behind his widow, one son, namely, Kishore Chandra Singhdeo and three daughters, namely, Smt. Asha Devi, Smt. Ratna Devi and Smt. Saidarshini Devi. On 24.12.2004, the daughters of late A.N.Singhdeo relinquished their interest over the ancestral properties including the suit land. Plaintiffs are the minor daughters of late Kishore Chandra Deo and Nandini Devi (defendant No.1). Said K.C. Deo is now dead. No partition by metes and bound has taken place allotting definite share to the plaintiffs. When the matter stood thus, defendant No.1, namely, Nandini Devi in collusion with defendants 2 to 4 (appellants herein) executed a Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.4. By virtue of the said Power of Attorney, defendant No.4 sold the entire suit property to defendant No.2 vide RSD No.1350 of 2011. Such sale is prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs and not binding on them. Consequently, defendants 2 to 4 having no right, title or interest in the suit property are trying to construct a multi-storied building over the same and are negotiating with the intending purchasers for sale of flats proposed to be constructed thereon. Thus, the plaintiffs being represented by their maternal uncle, Balbant Singh filed the suit for aforesaid relief. Consequently, defendants 2 to 4 having no right, title or interest in the suit property are trying to construct a multi-storied building over the same and are negotiating with the intending purchasers for sale of flats proposed to be constructed thereon. Thus, the plaintiffs being represented by their maternal uncle, Balbant Singh filed the suit for aforesaid relief. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed IA No.45 of 2013 with a prayer to restrain the defendants 2 to 4 (appellants herein) from entering upon the suit property and undertaking any kind of construction thereon. They also prayed for restraining the said defendants from alienating or creating any charge over the suit property in any manner till disposal of the suit. 4. Defendants 2 to 4 (appellants herein) filed their objection stating, inter alia that the suit property being ancestral in nature stood recorded in the name of late A.N.Singhdeo. After his death, late K.Ch. Deo and his widowed mother became the owners of the suit land. On the death of late K.Ch. Deo and the widow of late A.N.Singhdeo, the defendant No.1 being ‘Karta’ of the family and natural guardian of the plaintiffs executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2010 in favour of defendant No.4 (appellant No.3 herein) for herself as well as on behalf of her minor daughters authorizing him to look after, develop and sell the suit property. Being so authorized, the defendant No.4 sold the suit property to M/s Swastik Builder and Developers Private Limited (defendant No.2) for considerations. The defendants 2 and 3, by virtue of sale took over possession of the suit land and by obtaining financial assistance from bank have constructed sixty numbers of flats for which fifty-two intending purchasers have already paid the money and few sale deeds have also been executed in favour of some of the purchasers. The defendants 2 to 4 further contended that defendant No.1 had sold the suit land in the capacity of ‘Karta’ /manager of the undivided joint Hindu family, which is binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are set up to extract more money from defendants 2 to 4 by instituting the present suit as well as interim application. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the same. 5. Learned Civil Judge discussing the material on evidence and considering the arguments advanced by the respective parties, held that the plaintiffs have prima facie case. The plaintiffs are set up to extract more money from defendants 2 to 4 by instituting the present suit as well as interim application. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the same. 5. Learned Civil Judge discussing the material on evidence and considering the arguments advanced by the respective parties, held that the plaintiffs have prima facie case. While discussing the question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss, learned Civil Judge held that balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents herein), instead it leans in favour of the defendants 2 to 4. Further, he held that the plaintiffs would not suffer any irreparable loss if the order of injunction is refused. With the aforesaid observation, learned Civil Judge proceeded to direct the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the scheduled properties of the IA until further orders. 6. Heard Mr.S.P.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. B.Muduli, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, at the outset, submitted that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal. When the learned Civil Judge held that the balance of convenience leans in favour of the appellants and the respondents will not suffer any irreparable loss if the order of injunction is not granted, he could not have directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property, which is in the nature of an order of injunction. Further, he argued that the suit is not maintainable at the instance of the respondents being represented through their maternal uncle, when their mother (defendant No.1), who is the natural guardian is alive. Their maternal uncle, namely, Balbant Singh has not been appointed as guardian by competent court of law. Thus, he cannot maintain a suit as the guardian of the minors. Respondents’ claim for interest in the suit properties can be mitigated in terms of money as it has already been sold in favour of the defendant No.2 and a multi-storied building has already been constructed thereon. On the other hand, appellants would suffer irreparable loss if the order of status quo is allowed to continue as the appellants have invested huge amount of money for construction of the multi-storied building over the suit property and most of the intending purchasers have paid the consideration money towards purchase of their respective flats. On the other hand, appellants would suffer irreparable loss if the order of status quo is allowed to continue as the appellants have invested huge amount of money for construction of the multi-storied building over the suit property and most of the intending purchasers have paid the consideration money towards purchase of their respective flats. He further contended that the findings of the learned Civil Judge with regard to balance of convenience and irreparable loss has not been challenged, which has reached its finality. Thus, the impugned order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Mr.Muduli, learned counsel for the respondents filed his objection and contended that the suit property being ancestral in nature and the respondents being coparceners have definite share in it. The suit property has been sold illegally without obtaining permission of the Court when admittedly plaintiffs are minors. The Power of Attorney has been executed by defendant No.1 in collusion with other defendants describing the suit property as her exclusive property. Thus, it cannot be held that she has acted as a ‘Karta’ /manager of the family and the suit property was sold for welfare of the joint family and/or the minors. The interest of the minors was not protected in any manner, either at the time of execution of deed of Power of Attorney or at the time of execution of the sale deed. Law is no more res integra that in a suit for partition, status quo in respect of the suit property should be maintained. Learned Civil Judge has rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property, which is in the interest of the minors. Thus, the same needs no interference. On the other hand, a direction for disposal of the suit at an early date would meet the ends of justice to avoid further complicacies in the matter. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Thus, the same needs no interference. On the other hand, a direction for disposal of the suit at an early date would meet the ends of justice to avoid further complicacies in the matter. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. In course of argument, it is brought to the notice of this Court that CS No.407/12 was filed by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) being represented through their mother (defendant No.1) against the appellants (defendants 2 to 4) and IA No.352 of 2012 was filed therein seeking a relief of temporary injunction restraining the present appellant not to sell or alienate the suit property in any manner on the allegation that the Power of Attorney holder, namely, appellant No.3 by exercising undue influence and without giving proper opportunity to the mother-guardian (defendant No.1), managed to procure the deed of Power of Attorney and subsequently sold the suit land illegally in favour of defendants 1 and 2 (appellants 1 and 2 herein). Petitioners in the said IA are the plaintiffs in the present suit, i.e., C.S. No.43 of 2013 and the suit property involved is the same in both the suits. The contentions as well as the relief claimed are almost similar. The only difference in the allegation of both the suits is that in the earlier suit, i.e., C.S. No.407 of 2012, mother-guardian had alleged undue influence by the Attorney holder to obtain the deed of Power of Attorney and in the present suit, i.e., C.S. No.43 of 2013, it is alleged by the plaintiffs that their mother in collusion with defendant Nos.2 to 4, who are Power of Attorney holders and the Real Estate owners, had alienated the suit property. The I.A. in the earlier suit, i.e., IA No. 352 of 2012 was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2013 on merit. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court while adjudicating the present I.A., i.e., IA No.45 of 2013. Mr.S.P.Msirha, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Etc vs T. Ramachandra & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 2291 and submitted that in addition to the satisfaction of basic ingredients to pass an order of interim injunction, the Court should consider the conduct of the parties. Mr.S.P.Msirha, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Etc vs T. Ramachandra & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 2291 and submitted that in addition to the satisfaction of basic ingredients to pass an order of interim injunction, the Court should consider the conduct of the parties. The plaintiffs have approached the Court by filing different suits on different occasions seeking the self-same relief to restrain the defendants/appellants from exercising their right over the suit properties though they have purchased the same and have constructed multi-storied building thereon. Mr. Muduli on the other hand submitted that the plaintiffs-respondents can’t be held guilty of suppression of fact as he has made concise statement of facts in the plaint which would be elaborated at the time of adducing evidence with material particulars. He submitted that in fact the plaintiffs, through their mother, had filed CS No.407 of 2012. After rejection of the interim application, i.e., I.A. No.352 of 2012 on 04.10.2012 they through their mother, challenged the same in FAO Nos. 509 and 510 of 2012 before this Court. However, subsequently it came to the light that the defendant No.1 had colluded with the appellants and acted adverse to the interest of the minors. Thus, the present suit was filed through their maternal uncle-guardian. Accordingly, no adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiffs/respondents. Law is well-settled that a ‘Karta’ cannot be restrained from alienating any part of the joint family property for legal necessity. (See Sushil Kumar & Anr vs Ram Prakash & Ors, reported in AIR 1988 SC 576 ). Thus, the appellants are bona fide purchasers of the suit land and by obtaining financial assistance from the banks have constructed multi-storied building thereon. At this stage, an order of restraint or status quo can’t be beneficial for either of the parties. An argument is advanced by Mr.Muduli that the impugned sale is in contravention of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’). He also for that purpose relied upon a decision reported in 2014 (I) OLR SC 528 (Saroj Vs. An argument is advanced by Mr.Muduli that the impugned sale is in contravention of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’). He also for that purpose relied upon a decision reported in 2014 (I) OLR SC 528 (Saroj Vs. Sundar Singh and others), wherein it is held hat as per Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the said Act no immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged or charged, or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise without previous permission of the Court. Sub-section-3 of Section 8 provides that disposal of such an immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 8 is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act provides that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor, but the same is subject to the restrictions provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act. Further, Sub-section (3) of Section 8 makes it clear that any disposal of immovable property by the natural guardian in contravention of the provisions of Subsections (1) and (2) makes the said transaction voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. Thus, the impugned sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 can at best, be said to be voidable. The impugned sale deed is valid and binding on the minor until it is set aside in a competent Court of law [see 75 (1993) CLT 522 and 75 (1993) CLT 739]. 10. Learned Civil Judge taking all these aspects into consideration held that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable loss. But most peculiarly the impugned order has been passed directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land. The order of status quo is in the nature of an order of injunction as the parties are restrained from proceeding further and directed to maintain their respective position in respect of the suit property as on the date of the order. 11. The order of status quo is in the nature of an order of injunction as the parties are restrained from proceeding further and directed to maintain their respective position in respect of the suit property as on the date of the order. 11. Arguments are advanced with regard to maintainability of the suit, but this Court does not think it proper to express any opinion on the same and delve into that aspect which can be well-adjudicated in the suit itself. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Mandali Ranganna (supra) in concluding paragraph-24, held as follows:- “24. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub served if while allowing the respondents to carry out constructions of the buildings, the same is made subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. The Trial Court is requested to hear out and dispose of the suit as early as possible. If any third party interest is created upon completion of the constructions, the deeds in question shall clearly stipulate that the matter is subjudice and all sales shall be subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. All parties must cooperate in the early hearing and disposal of the suit. Respondents must also furnish sufficient security before the learned Trial Judge within four weeks from the date which, for the time being, is assessed at Rupees One Crore.” In view of the observation made above by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court sets aside the impugned order with the direction that the deed of alienation if any to be executed by the appellants shall stipulate that the matter is sub judice and all sales shall be subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands disposed of.