JUDGMENT : C L SONI, J. 1. The appeal is filed under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("the CPC") against the order dated 04.11.2011 passed by learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj (Kutch) below application Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.111 of 2011. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants in above suit. They shall be referred as per their original status in the suit. The plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1 and the sister of defendant No.2 to 4. The defendants No. 5 to 9 are the first purchasers of the suit lands and the defendant No.10 to 12 are the second purchasers of the suit lands. 3. In the above suit, the plaintiff has prayed to declare that the sale deed dated 17.04.2010 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.5 to 9 is invalid, as it is false and bogus and the defendant no.1 has no right or authority to sell the suit lands belonging to joint Hindu family; to declare that the sale deed dated 12.01.2011 executed by the defendant no. 5 to 9 in favour of defendant no.10 to 12 is invalid, as it is also false; to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.10 to 12 from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any charge on the suit lands and restraining the defendant No.10 to 14 from taking any proceedings for conversion of the suit lands to non-agriculture use. 4. 5 to 9 in favour of defendant no.10 to 12 is invalid, as it is also false; to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.10 to 12 from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any charge on the suit lands and restraining the defendant No.10 to 14 from taking any proceedings for conversion of the suit lands to non-agriculture use. 4. The case of the plaintiff in her suit is that lands bearing Survey Nos.36/2 ad-measuring 0-79-00 Hectare-Are-Sq.mt, Survey No.37 ad-measuring 1-04-00 Hectare-Are-Sq.mts, survey No.40 admeasuring 3-49-00 Hectare-Are-Sq.mts, Survey No.42 ad-measuring 3-27-00 Hectare-Are-Sq.mts and Survey No.870/55 ad-measuring 0- 02-00 Hectare-Are-Sq.mts (total ad-measuring 8-68-00 Hectare-AreSq.mts, referred as 'the suit lands') are ancestral and undivided properties of joint Hindu Family since the time of her grandfather and not of independent ownership of her father defendant No.1; that no partition or relinquishment from the suit lands has ever taken place, but the defendant No.1 got the sale deeds executed for the suit lands in his favour from Bhimji Parbat and Lalji Parbat who had no right or authority to sell the suit lands to the defendant No.1; that the defendant No.1 illegally acquired rights in the suit lands and in illegal manner he executed sale deed dated 17.04.2010 in favour of the defendant Nos.5 to 9 for consideration of Rs.38 lac and, thereafter, the defendant Nos.5 to 9 sold the suit lands to defendant Nos.10 to 12 by registered sale deed dated 12.01.2011 for consideration of Rs.85,90,000/- and thus, the suit lands have been in possession of the defendant Nos.10 to 12, which is not legal possession and that the defendant no.10 to 12 are not the bona fide purchasers of the suit lands. It is further case of the plaintiff that though Suit No.544 of 2008 for partition of suit lands is pending between the parties, still the above two sale deeds were executed for the suit lands causing prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff. It is stated that if the defendant Nos.10 to 12 get the suit lands converted to non-agricultural use, the plaintiff will be put to great hardship in getting her share from the suit lands. 5. It is stated that if the defendant Nos.10 to 12 get the suit lands converted to non-agricultural use, the plaintiff will be put to great hardship in getting her share from the suit lands. 5. In the above suit, the plaintiff filed application Exh.5 seeking to restrain the defendants No.10 to 12 from selling, transferring, alienating or in any manner creating charge on the suit lands and also from taking any proceedings to convert the suit lands to nonagricultural use and also restraining the defendant Nos.13 and 14 (the state authorities) from taking any proceedings for conversion of the suit lands to non-agricultural use. Learned Judge has rejected such application Exh.5 by impugned order. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the plaintiff submitted that the suit lands are the ancestral properties held by her grandfather and his brothers and neither any partition of the suit lands had ever taken place nor the plaintiff has relinquished her right from the suit lands, and the suit lands have continued to be joint Hindu family undivided properties. Mr.Mehta submitted that the grandfather of the plaintiff supported the claim of the plaintiff by filing affidavit, marked 3/5, stating that the suit lands are ancestral properties and defendant No.1 got the sale deeds illegally executed in his favour for the suit lands. Mr.Mehta submitted that there is another suit pending being Regular Civil Suit No.544 of 2008 for partition filed by the grandson of the defendant no.1, wherein, the plaintiff is also a party and since such suit for partition is filed for benefits of all the family members, the suit lands need to be otherwise preserved and protected till the suit of the plaintiff is finally decided. Mr. Mehta submitted that learned judge has failed to appreciate that the suit lands with other lands were jointly held by the grandfather of the plaintiff with his brothers as ancestral properties and therefore sale of suit lands in favour of the defendant no.1 has no legal efficacy and could not confer any independent right in his favour and the suit lands have continued to be joint Hindu family undivided properties wherein the plaintiff has her undivided share. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta submitted if the suit lands are ancestral properties, and if Bhimji Parbat and Lalji Parbat had no right to execute the sale deeds for such ancestral properties in favour of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 would acquire no title to the suit lands by the above sale deeds. He also submitted that the defendant No.1 being the member of joint family, the defendant No.1 was not entitled to get the sale deed executed in his favour for joint Hindu undivided properties but he would continue to have undivided share like the plaintiff in the ancestral properties and, therefore, non-challenge to the sale deeds, executed in favour of the defendant No.1 for the suit lands, by the plaintiff will not take away the right of the plaintiff to have her share in joint Hindu family undivided properties the suit lands. Mr. Mehta submitted that learned Judge committed serious error in discarding the documentary evidence - the affidavit of the grandfather of the plaintiff and in not considering the pendency of suit for partition filed by grandson of the defendant no.1 while deciding the application Exh.5. Mr. Mehta submitted that learned judge has not addressed the real issues in the facts of the case and has refused to grant interim injunction to the plaintiff on irrelevant considerations and therefore interference of this Court is called for in the impugned order in exercise of powers under Order XLIII of the CPC. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Shah submitted that the defendant No.1 the father of the plaintiff purchased lands bearing Survey No.36/2 and 42 by registered sale deed dated 12.07.1974 and lands bearing survey No.37 and 40 by registered sale deed dated 14.03.1980 from Lalji Parbat and Bhimji Parbat respectively and became absolute owner of these lands. He submitted that after more than 30 years, the plaintiff has filed suit claiming the suit lands to be the ancestral and undivided joint Hindu properties and has challenged only the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant Nos.5 to 9 by the defendant No.1 in 2010 and the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant Nos.10 to 12 by defendant Nos.5 to 9 in 2011 for the suit lands, but has not challenged the two sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant No.1 in 1974 and 1980 respectively for the suit land. Mr.Shah submitted that the plaintiff has neither claimed any share in the suit lands nor has prayed for possession of her share in the suite lands. Mr.Shah submitted that defendant Nos.10 to 12 purchased the suit lands after examining the revenue record and after giving public notice and they are bona fide purchasers of the suit lands and learned judge has committed no error in refusing to grant injunction against the bona fide purchasers of the suit lands. Mr.Shah submitted that after purchasing the suit land, the defendant Nos.10 to 12 have divided the suit lands into 300 plots, out of which for more than 103 plots, sale deeds have been executed in favour of several service class and middle class people and if interim injunction in the suit is granted, it will result into immense hardships and irreparable loss to the defendant Nos.10 to 12 as also to the purchasers of the plots. Mr.Shah submitted that since the claim of the plaintiff in her suit suffer from delay and laches, she is not entitled to grant of equitable relief in her favour under Order XXXIX of the CPC. 8. Learned advocate Ms.Rahewar appearing for defendant Nos.5 to 9 has taken stand in support of the arguments made by learned advocate Mr.Shah for defendant Nos.10 to 12. 9. The Court, having heard learned advocates, finds that against the claim of the plaintiff that the suit lands are ancestral and undivided properties of joint Hindu family and not the self-acquired properties of the defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 has filed written statement / reply stating that the suit lands are his self acquired properties. He has further stated that he purchased land bearing survey No.36/2 and 42 from Lalji Parbat by registered sale deed on 12.07.1974 and the land bearing survey No.37 and 40 from Bhimji Parbat by registered sale deed on 14.03.1980, in respect of which the entries No.151 and 508 in record of rights promulgated before thirty years are produced by the plaintiff herself at Mark 3/12 and 3/13. 10. As stated in the plaint, the defendant No.1 sold suit lands to defendant Nos.5 to 9 by registered sale deeds on 17.04.2010 and the defendant Nos.5 to 9 then sold the suit lands to defendant Nos.10 to 12 by registered sale deed dated 12.01.2011 for consideration of Rs.85,90,000/- and they are in possession of the suit lands. 11. 10. As stated in the plaint, the defendant No.1 sold suit lands to defendant Nos.5 to 9 by registered sale deeds on 17.04.2010 and the defendant Nos.5 to 9 then sold the suit lands to defendant Nos.10 to 12 by registered sale deed dated 12.01.2011 for consideration of Rs.85,90,000/- and they are in possession of the suit lands. 11. As observed by learned Judge in the impugned order, the defendant No.1 purchased the suit lands by two different sale deeds executed in the year 1974 and 1980 respectively, however, none of the family members including the plaintiff has ever challenged either the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant No.1 or the revenue entries made in his favour for the suit lands, and still the plaintiff has taken the plea that Bhimji Parbat and Lalji Parbat had no right or authority to execute the sale deeds in favour of the defendant No.1. Mr.Mehta however submitted that the grandfather of the plaintiff has filed affidavit stating that the suit lands are ancestral properties and the sale deeds were illegally executed for the suit lands in favour of the defendant No.1 and in view of such affidavit of the grandfather of the plaintiff, it could be said that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. 12. Learned Judge has observed that the plaintiff has produced Xerox copies of the affidavits of her grandfather and of Prembai - the daughter of Bhimji Parbat, but the plaintiff has not disclosed where from she got the Xerox copies of the affidavits. Learned judge has observed that the persons shown as deponents have not come before the Court to state that the contents of the affidavits are correct. The court finds that the documents of Xerox Copies of the affidavits, bear the date of 17.06.2009 and on stamp papers of Rs.50/- and were prepared two years prior to filing of the suit. Learned Judge has rightly not given any credence at this stage to the Xerox copies of the affidavits produced by the plaintiff to record that the suit lands do not prima facie appear to be ancestral joint Hindu family undivided properties. Learned Judge has rightly not given any credence at this stage to the Xerox copies of the affidavits produced by the plaintiff to record that the suit lands do not prima facie appear to be ancestral joint Hindu family undivided properties. Learned Judge has thus, on consideration of the aspects as regards non challenge to the sale deeds of 1974 and of 1980 and to the revenue entries for the suit lands made in favour of the defendant No.1 and on prima facie assessment of the documents on record, found that the suit lands do not prima facie appear to be the ancestral and undivided joint Hindu family properties. 13. Learned Judge has observed that before purchasing the suit lands from the defendant Nos.5 to 9, the defendant Nos.10 to 12 gave public notice (mark 36/1) in daily Gujarati Newspaper "Kutch Mitra" on 13.10.2010 inviting objection concerning title of the suit lands, but nobody raised any objection. Learned Judge has observed that defendant Nos.10 to 12 appear to be bona fide purchasers and that the plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence on which the Court could come to prima facie conclusion that the suit lands are joint Hindu family undivided properties. 14. At this stage, reference is required to be made to the averments made by the plaintiff in her application for amending the plaint. In her amendment application, the plaintiff has stated that in 1965, the lands bearing Survey no.36/2 and 42 stood in the name of Lalji Parbat and lands bearing Survey no.37 and 40 stood in the name of Bhimji Parbat in revenue record and the land bearing survey No.43 was in the name of her grandfather, which he sold away. It is stated by Mr. Mehta that since the application for amendment was partly allowed, the plaintiff has filed petition before this Court, which is pending. However, the fact remains that for long time the suit lands had continued in the names of the uncles of the defendant No.1 and then in the name of defendant No.1 in revenue record till he sold to defendants No. 5 to 9 in the year 2010. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the grandfather of plaintiff ever challenged the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant No.1. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the grandfather of plaintiff ever challenged the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant No.1. Therefore, in absence of cogent and reliable material in support of her say that the suit lands are ancestral properties, the plaintiff would not be entitled to grant of equitable relief just on her claim that the suit lands are ancestral properties, especially when the suit lands have changed hands twice. 15. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta, however, submitted that the grandson of defendant No.1 has filed Regular Civil Suit No.544 of 2008 for partition of the suit lands, wherein, the plaintiff, the sons of the defendant No.1 and their family members are joined as defendants. He submitted that such suit for partition is for the benefit for family members and, therefore, the suit lands are required to be preserved and protected. At this stage, Mr. Shah submitted that application for interim injunction filed in the suit filed by the grandson of the defendant no.1 was rejected and the appeal filed against order rejecting such the application was withdrawn. Be that as it may, the contention of Mr. Mehta can otherwise not be accepted as pendency of the suit filed by the grandson of the defendant no.1 is no consideration for grant of equitable relief in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Whether the plaintiff deserves grant of interim injunction in her suit is to be decided on the basis of the pleadings and the material on record of her suit. 16. A litigant who claims equitable relief is expected to also do equity to his / her opponent. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mandali Ranganna V. T. Ramachandra reported in, (2008) 11 SCC 1 , while considering the application for grant of interim injunction, the Court is also required to consider the conduct of the party, who claims such relief, over and above three basic principles, i.e prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The Court finds that the plaintiff having not taken any objection at any point of time against the sale deeds executed for the suit lands in the year 1974 and 1980 by the uncles of the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff having allowed the defendant No.1 to exclusively deal with the suit lands for long time till the suit lands have changed hands, she on her conduct of delay and laches could not be made entitled to grant of equitable relief. 17. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta, however, submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has observed in the judgment rendered in the First Appeal No.863 of 2015 filed by the plaintiff that there is a prima facie case of the plaintiff that the suit lands are ancestral properties and therefore, the impugned order is required to be interfered with and the application Exh.5 is required to be allowed. 18. The Court finds that in the First Appeal, this Court had examined the legality or otherwise of the order made by learned trial Judge on application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action for filing the suit. Learned trial Judge had allowed said application and rejected the plaint of the above suit filed by the plaintiff. While examining the the impugned order in the First Appeal, this Court was required to decide whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not. Therefore, in the context of the challenge made in the First Appeal, whatever observations made by this Court were on the averments made in the plaint, especially, for cause of action for the suit. Such observations could not be relied by the plaintiff to assail the impugned order as the impugned order is made by learned Judge on prima facie assessment of the material on record and on the conduct of the plaintiff in not challenging the sale deeds of the year 1974 and 1980 executed in favour of the defendant No.1. 19. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta has relied on judgment in the case of Ramdas Vs. 19. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta has relied on judgment in the case of Ramdas Vs. Sitabai and others reported in, (2009) 7 SCC 444 to submit that the defendant No.1 could not have sold more than his share in the suit lands which are undivided joint Hindu properties and, therefore, the first purchasers as well as the second purchasers cannot have a better title than what the respondent No.1 had and therefore the plaintiff could be said to have made out prima facie case for grant of interim injunction as prayed for in the application Exh.5. 20. Before Hon'ble Supreme Court in above case, appeal was filed against the judgment rendered by Bombay High Court in second appeal. The case was, therefore, decided on the basis of the evidence in the suit. In the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, one deceased Sukha was the owner of the properties and the plaintiff Sitabhai in the said case claimed to be a co-sharer to the extent of half share in the suit property for the reasons that the plaintiff Sitabhai and the defendant No.1 Sundam were the only legal heirs of the deceased Sukha. In the context of such facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court held and observed in paragraph Nos.14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 as under: 14. We have considered the aforesaid contentions in the light of the relevant records. All the four properties which constitute the suit property belonged to Sukha who was the absolute owner of the said four property. After the death of Sukha, all the aforesaid four property was jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff-Sitabai and defendant No. 1-Sudam as the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Sukha. 15. It could not also be disputed that all the aforesaid 4 plots of land which are the suit property were joint property and therefore, the plaintiff-Sitabai and defendant No. 1-Sudam owned and possessed half undivided share each in all the 4 properties. The defendant No. 1-Sudam who is the brother of the plaintiff-Sitabai could not have therefore sold the entire Gat No. 19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli in favour of the defendant No. 3-Ramdas (appellant herein) in as much as the aforesaid land was undivided and the plaintiff-Sitabai and defendant No. 1-Sudam were two co-sharers in the said property. The defendant No. 1-Sudam who is the brother of the plaintiff-Sitabai could not have therefore sold the entire Gat No. 19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli in favour of the defendant No. 3-Ramdas (appellant herein) in as much as the aforesaid land was undivided and the plaintiff-Sitabai and defendant No. 1-Sudam were two co-sharers in the said property. In that view of the matter, the High Court was correct and legally justified in declaring the plaintiff-Sitabai as the owner and holder of half of the shares in all the four aforesaid properties which are undivided. The defendant No. 1-Sudam being a co-sharer could not have sold by a registered sale deed more than his share nor could he have delivered possession till the said property is partitioned by the parties amicably or through the intervention of the Court according to their share. 16. It is settled law under the Transfer of Property Act, that a purchaser cannot have a better title than what his vendor had. The possession which is claimed by the defendant No. 3- Ramdas (appellant herein) in respect of the entire land bearing Gat No. 19 area admeasuring 2.56H of Mouza Padoli was also illegal and without proper sanction of law. So long as the property is joint and not partitioned, the defendant No. 3- Ramdas (appellant herein) is not entitled to get possession of the said land. Even otherwise, the appellant herein having purchased the land from defendant No. 1-Sudam could be entitled to be declared at the most to the extent of half share of the said piece of land having stepped into the shoes of his vendor and could not have asked for and claimed ownership and possession over the entire land of Gat No. 19 admeasuring 2.56 H.R. 17. Without there being any physical formal partition of an undivided landed property, a co-sharer cannot put a vendee in possession although such a co-sharer may have a right to transfer his undivided share. Reliance in this regard may be placed to a decision of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami and Ors., (1966) AIR SC 470, wherein this Court stated as follows : "Now, it is well settled that the purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled to possession of what he had purchased. His only right is to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment to him of that which, on partition, might be found to fall to the share of the coparcener whose share he had purchased." 19. In view of the aforesaid position there could be no dispute with regard to the fact that an undivided share of co-sharer may be a subject-matter of sale, but possession cannot be handed over to the vendee unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds amicably and through mutual settlement or by a decree of the Court. 21. The above judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, the claim of the plaintiff that the suit lands are ancestral and undivided joint Hindu family properties is highly disputed. Learned Judge has on prima facie assessment of the material on record found that the suit lands do not prima facie appear to be ancestral and undivided joint Hindu family Properties and also on conduct of the plaintiff found that the plaintiff is not entitled to grant of equitable relief. 22. In the case of Wander Ltd. and Another Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. reported in, (1990) Supp1 SCC 727, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph No.14 as under: 14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Josheph : "... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osention & Co. v. Johnston the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case. The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle. 23. In light of above and for reasons stated above, the Court finds that no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order in exercise of powers under Order XLIII of the CPC. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Interim relief if any stands vacated. Order in Civil Application No.1 of 2018 (CA/1713/ 2018): This application was wrongly notified as it was already disposed of by order dated 21.6.2018. Civil Application No.2 of 2016 (CA/9003/2016): Learned advocate Mr. Shah sought permission to withdraw the application as the appeal was finally heard. The application is therefore disposed of as withdrawn. Order in Civil Application No.2 of 2015(CA/3520/2015, Civil Application No.3 of 2015(CA/4112/2015), Civil Application No.3 of 2016(CA/8705/2016): Since the Appeal from Order is finally decided, these Applications shall not survive. Hence, they are disposed of accordingly. (C.L. SONI, J) At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the appellant requests to stay the operation of the present judgment to enable the appellant to approach the higher Forum to Hon'ble Supreme Court to challenge the present judgment. Learned advocate Mr.Shah however, objects to grant such request. In the facts of the case, the Court finds that request made by learned advocate Mr.Mehta is not required to be accepted. Hence, it is rejected.