ORDER : C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1) The Appellants, who are the Plaintiffs, filed O.S. No.23 of 2021 seeking the following reliefs:- i. “to direct the partition of the plaint schedule mentioned property in 8 equal shares with regard to good and bad and allot one such share each to the plaintiffs; ii. to put the separate possession of respective shares to the plaintiffs; iii. to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit; iv. to grant such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case/suit”. 2. Pending Suit, I.A. No. 387 of 2021 came to be filed for an exparte interim injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants from alienating the Plaint Schedule Properties to third parties till disposal of the Suit. 3. The averments in the interlocutory application would show that, one Sri.Chinthakunta Munaiah Naidu, was married to one C.Chennamma, who is the Respondent No. 1 herein. They are blessed with four Sons [Plaintiffs] and three Daughters [Respondent No. 2 to 4]. Their elder son C.Muniswamy Naidu, who is the husband of Respondent No.5 and father of Respondent No. 6, died on 27.07.2005. 4. It is said that, the parties to the lis are members of Hindu Undivided Joint Family. The Appellants and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were doing cultivation and also business and the profits derived from it were entrusted to C. Muniswamy Naidu, who purchased the properties in his name. 5. It is said that, at the time of demise of C. Muniswamy Naidu, Respondent No. 6 was aged about 16 years. While performing the marriage of Respondent No. 6, the Appellants have incurred huge expenses. It is said that, though the Plaint Schedule Properties are in possession of joint family, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not coming forward and cooperate in filing suit against Respondent No. 5 and 6, but, willing to partition the Plaint Schedule Properties. It is said that, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are proclaiming that C.Muniswamy Naidu, purchased the properties out of his own funds, but it is said that he has no individual capacity to purchase those properties. 6. As things stood thus, Respondent Nos. It is said that, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are proclaiming that C.Muniswamy Naidu, purchased the properties out of his own funds, but it is said that he has no individual capacity to purchase those properties. 6. As things stood thus, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are said to have forged the signatures of Appellant No. 1 on promissory notes valued at Rs.47,10,000/- and Rs.22,00,000/- and filed two Suits vide O.S. No. 8505 of 2019 and O.S. No. 8619 of 2019 on the file of XVI City Civil Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. However, the said Suits were withdrawn, on 27.11.2020, by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, without any intimation, but on coming to know that the Appellant No.1 filed vakalatnama in the said Suits. It is said that, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are blackmailing and creating troubles to the Appellants and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to grab the properties. 7. It is further said that, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed O.S. No.259 of 2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, for partition of the properties in Survey Nos. 29, 30, 31, 47/2, 48, 49, 50/1, 50/2 and 52/4, which were subsequently sub-divided as 29/B, 30-B, 31-B, 48-C, 49-A, 50/1-C, 50/2C and 50/4-C. However, the said Suit was also withdrawn at the summons stage without any proper intimation. 8. It is said that, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to 1/8th share each and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are entitled to 1/8th share in the Plaint Schedule Properties. The Appellants and the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are said to have approached Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for partition of the Plaint Schedule Properties into eight equal shares and allot one such share to each of them, but, however, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not cooperating, resulting in Appellants filing a Suit for partition and separate possession of the Plaint Schedule Properties by dividing it into eight equal shares and to allot one such share to each of them. Having regard to prima facie case and balance of convenience, the Appellants sought for an injunction. 9. A counter came to be filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 separately, disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application. 10. The 1st Respondent is the Mother of Appellant Nos. Having regard to prima facie case and balance of convenience, the Appellants sought for an injunction. 9. A counter came to be filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 separately, disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application. 10. The 1st Respondent is the Mother of Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, mother-in-law of Respondent No. 5 and Grandmother of 6th Respondent. Being an elder in the family, she denies the claim of the Appellants, who are her Sons. She submits that, all the properties in the Suit belong to her eldest Son (C.Muniswamy Naidu), who is the sole cause for bringing up the entire family and also took care of the society and Village, which brought name and fame to them. It is further stated that the daughter of the 1st Respondent’s eldest son, by name, Mrs. C.Vandana [Respondent No.6], also took care of the entire family. It is averred that, properties either standing in the name of 1st Respondent’s husband or in the name of brothers of C. Pedda Muniswamy Naidu i.e., Appellants, or in the name of his family members, were earned by her eldest son, late C. Pedda Muniswamy Naidu, and this Respondent being mother of all, states that what all she is saying is truth. According to her, the present Suit came to be filed to grab the properties of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which are personal and individual properties of C.Muniswamy Naidu @ C. Pedda Muniswamy Naidu. 11. (i) The 2nd and 4th Respondents also filed their counters denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed along with the Petition, while admitting the relationship between the Appellants and Defendants. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 submit that the name of the 2nd Petitioner is one Chintakunta Chinna Muniswamy Naidu, but not Chintakunta Muniswamy Naidu, and that the Petition Schedule Properties are personal and individual properties of the husband of the 5th Respondent and father of 6th Respondent, by name, C.Muniswamy Naidu, who excelled on his own hard-work and reached to a stage of Class-I contractor. It is said that, C.Muniswamy Naidu, purchased the Petition Schedule Properties with his own earnings and he was never a member of the joint family, as alleged by the Appellants. It is said that, C.Muniswamy Naidu, purchased the Petition Schedule Properties with his own earnings and he was never a member of the joint family, as alleged by the Appellants. It is said that, so called joint family never had any lands or business to constitute a nucleus of joint family. It is said that, the husband of 5th Respondent and father of 6th Respondent performed the marriages of all the Respondents i.e., Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in a grand manner and also purchased houses in their names at their in-laws places. (ii) The counter filed also refers to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filing a Suit vide O.S. No.259 of 2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, against the Appellants and other Respondents for partition, which was withdrawn on the request of the Appellants as well as Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Thereafter, the property was sold by the family members, who also received sale consideration. It was also stated that C. Muniswamy Naidu @ C.Pedda Muniswamy Naidu, filed income tax returns showing the Plaint Schedule Properties as his personal properties and that all the properties standing in the name of Appellants were not shown in the Suit for partition. 12. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 being the mother and daughter also filed counter disputing the averments. Their counter shows that these Respondents filed O.S. No. 8505 of 2019 and O.S. No. 8619 of 2019 in a Court at Chennai, for recovery of money by way of attaching property, which was subsequently withdrawn in view of the settlement. According to them, neither the Appellants nor Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have any right over the Plaint Schedule Properties and the 1st Appellant raised loan from UCO Bank by subscribing the signature of 6th Respondent and registered a Mortgage Deed, dated 05.06.2014. Hence, it is said that, 1st Appellant not only impersonated the signature of the 6th Respondent, but also impersonated and signed the signature of 6th Respondent in Telugu, taking advantage of some similarity in the name. 13. After considering the rival arguments, the trial Court by its Order, dated 06th November, 2021, held that the Plaint Schedule Properties are not joint family properties and they belong to 5th and 6th Respondents. It will be appropriate to extract the findings, which are as under: “26. 13. After considering the rival arguments, the trial Court by its Order, dated 06th November, 2021, held that the Plaint Schedule Properties are not joint family properties and they belong to 5th and 6th Respondents. It will be appropriate to extract the findings, which are as under: “26. On the scrutiny of the above discussion of documentary evidence, this Court has no hesitation to say that the Petition Schedule Properties are not joint family properties and they belongs to the 5th and 6th Respondents who have filed ample documentary proof in their favour and even the Appellant/Plaintiffs also filed documents in favour of 5th and 6th Respondents and as admittedly no scrap of paper filed by the Appellant/Plaintiffs to show that the Petition Schedule Properties are joint family properties of the Appellant as well as Respondents. In weighing the versions of both parties to this application, much priority has to be given to the 5th and 6th Respondents and if injunction is granted, they will be put to irreparable loss. 27. In view of these circumstances, the Appellant are not entitled to restrain the Respondents/Defendants from alienating the Petition Schedule Properties by way of temporary injunction.” 14. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C. 15. (i) Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, mainly submits that the husband of the 5th Respondent and father of 6th Respondent managed the joint family properties and that out of the profits from joint family nucleus, the husband of 5th Respondent and father of 6th Respondent purchased the properties in his name. He further submits that, the joint family nucleus has got sufficient resources to purchase the property. According to him, 5th and 6th Respondents filed Suits in Chennai, seeking recovery of certain amount from the Appellants, which were subsequently withdrawn. They also filed Suits for partition and separate possession and before notices were served, the said Suits were withdrawn. The learned Counsel took us through the written statement filed by 5th and 6th Respondents in support of his plea. (ii) He further submits that the trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the Plaint Schedule Properties are not joint family properties, merely because the properties stood in the name of one of the member of the family. The learned Counsel took us through the written statement filed by 5th and 6th Respondents in support of his plea. (ii) He further submits that the trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the Plaint Schedule Properties are not joint family properties, merely because the properties stood in the name of one of the member of the family. According to him, the said fact does not lead to an inference that they are self acquired properties. The fact that partition suit came to be filed and withdrawn, itself is sufficient to show that they are not self acquired properties. In other words, he would submit that the reasoning given by the trial Court is based on no evidence and the same is erroneous in law. He further submits that in the plaint itself it is stated that there are sufficient funds in the joint family nucleus to purchase of property in the name of kartha and sequence of events, which lead to 5th and 6th Respondents filing Suits, would be sufficient to hold that it is a joint family property. According to him, the Plaint Schedule Properties are joint family properties and during the pendency of the Suit, the properties are sought to be sold and, as such, an interim injunction from alienating the properties is sought. 16. On the other hand, Sri. Thirumalai Balaji, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri. Ravula Nagarjuna, learned Counsel for Respondents, opposed the same contending that the Appellants have not made out any prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favour, as there is no possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Properties. He further contended that, name of 2nd Appellant is one Chinthakunta Chinna Muni Swamy Naidu but not Chinthakunta Muni Swamy Naidu and that the Plaint Schedule Properties are the personal and individual properties of the husband of 5th Respondent and father of 6th Respondent, by name, Chinthakunta Pedda Muni Swamy, who developed the Plaint Schedule Properties during his life time with his hard work. He further contended that, Appellants are seeking interim injunction without seeking permanent injunction in the main suit, which is against the law and that no injunction can be granted against coowners in a partition suit and in the instant Suit, the 5th and 6th Respondents are not co-owners but they are the absolute owners of Plaint Schedule Properties. He further contended that, Appellants are seeking interim injunction without seeking permanent injunction in the main suit, which is against the law and that no injunction can be granted against coowners in a partition suit and in the instant Suit, the 5th and 6th Respondents are not co-owners but they are the absolute owners of Plaint Schedule Properties. Hence, it is urged that there are no merits in the application. 17. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Appellants are entitled for any interim relief pending disposal of O.S. No. 23 of 2021? 18. It is a well settled law that, grant or refusing to grant a temporary injunction is covered by three established principles i.e., i] whether the Petitioner has made out a prima facie case; (ii) whether balance of convenience is in their favour; (iii) whether petitioner will suffer irreparable injury if temporary injunction is not granted. 19. Granting of temporary injunction is a discretionary remedy and in exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing to grant, the Court will take into reckoning the following as guidelines: “(i) Whether the person seeking temporary injunction has made out a prima facie case. This is sine quo non. (ii) Whether the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., whether it could cause grater inconvenience to him if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which he otherwise would be put to if the injunction is granted. As to that, the governing principle is whether the party seeking injunction could be adequately compensated by awarding damages and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them. (iii) Whether the person seeking temporary injunction would suffer irreparable injury. It is however, not necessary that all the three conditions must obtain. With the first condition as sine quo non at least two conditions should be satisfied by the petitioner conjunctively and a mere proof of one of the three conditions does not entitle a person to obtain temporary injunction”. 20. It is however, not necessary that all the three conditions must obtain. With the first condition as sine quo non at least two conditions should be satisfied by the petitioner conjunctively and a mere proof of one of the three conditions does not entitle a person to obtain temporary injunction”. 20. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, states that any alienation pending Suit, would be subject to result of the Suit but that by itself, in our view, is not a bar to grant temporary injunction, as held by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us is a member in K. Ravi Prasad Reddy V. G. Giridhar [C.M.A. No. 43 and 45 of 2021, dated 25.01.2022] reported in (1) L.S. page 104 (A.P.) (D.B.). Though, the facts in the said case are slightly different, but the principles laid down with regard to the applicability of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, and grant of interim injunction, namely, not to alienate the property, would apply to the facts in issue. 21. In Kavali Nirmalamma and Others V. Kailas Industrial Gages Limited and Others, 2020 (4) ALT 306 (TS), the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, held that in a partition suit, purchaser of ancestral property is a necessary party and in the absence of necessary party, partition suit cannot be adjudicated. 22. Keeping in view the principles laid down, we shall now proceed to deal with the case on hand. 23. Admittedly, the Appellants are the Sons of Respondent No. 1, brothers of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, brother-in-law of Respondent No.5 and junior paternal uncle of Respondent No. 6. It is not in dispute that late C. Muniswamy Naidu, who is the eldest Son was looking after the family affairs, and properties were purchased in his name and also in the name of his wife. It is also an admitted fact that, the Appellants and Respondents were living jointly, which supports the contention of the Appellants that there was a joint family when late C.Muniswamy Naidu, was alive and who being the eldest son was managing joint family properties by doing business. 24. It is also an admitted fact that, the Appellants and Respondents were living jointly, which supports the contention of the Appellants that there was a joint family when late C.Muniswamy Naidu, was alive and who being the eldest son was managing joint family properties by doing business. 24. The counter and written statement filed by 5th and 6th Respondents show that an extent of 4.00 acres of land stands in the name of the father of the Appellants and also in the name of late C.Muniswamy Naidu, because of which, 5th and 6th Respondents filed O.S. No. 259 of 2020. A reading of Ex.P13 [Plaint], would indicate the same but the same was not discussed by the trial Court. However, as seen from record, prima facie, no explanation is forthcoming from 5th and 6th Respondents as to why they have filed O.S. No. 259 of 2020 for partition against the Appellants herein when it was not a joint family property and no properties were there with joint family. 25. It is to be noted here that in one breadth Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 contend that the properties are self acquired properties of late C.Muniswamy Naidu, but in their pleadings they have stated that C.Muniswamy Naidu, was managing the family by doing different business, performed the marriages of his sisters, providing education to his brothers and even looked after the welfare of his younger brothers, which prima facie supports the contention of the Appellants that there was a joint family and properties were managed by the Kartha. Otherwise, the Kartha would not have indulged in such acts. Further, merely because the properties were in the name of the Kartha of joint family member, does not by itself is a ground to reject the contention of the Appellants that in the absence of any document filed by the Appellants, the properties which they are claiming for partition are not joint family properties. 26. In the written statement filed by 5th and 6th Respondents, it was averred that the income tax returns, said to have been filed by late Peda Muniswamy Naidu indicate these properties, but the documents 2 to 5 which have been produced and marked before the trial Court as Ex.R9 to Ex.R12, (which are income tax returns of 6th Respondent), would show that C.Muniswamy Naidu, filed income tax returns on behalf of Hindu Undivided Family. Hence, it stands established, prima facie, that there was a joint family and the joint family was getting some income. Therefore, to establish the issue beyond doubt as to whether C.Muniswamy Naidu purchased properties out of his own earning without any aid of the Appellants or from the funds of the joint family requires consideration, during the course of trial, after evidence is adduced by both sides. 27. A perusal of the Order of the trial Court shows repetition of pleadings, description of documents and its conclusions. The Order of the trial Court at para 24 and the pleadings of 5th and 6th Respondents show that the 3rd Appellant was looking after the affairs of the family under General Power of Attorney, dated 17.10.2005, i.e., after the death of late C.Muniswamy Naidu on 27.07.2005 and the 3rd Appellant is said to have given an affidavit stating that Respondent No. 6 has taken all responsibility due to which he has withdrawn the power given to him under G.P.A., which also suggests that 3rd Appellant being the brother of late C.Muniswamy Naidu was looking after the properties when the Appellants were alleged to have been addicted to bad vices. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 failed to explain as to why G.P.A. was given in favour of 3rd Appellant to manage Plaint Schedule Properties i.e., properties situated in Karapally, when it was alleged to be the self-acquired property of C.Muniswamy Naidu. 28. Further, the trial Court gave much importance to the cultivation accounts which stood in the name of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Admittedly, the same relates to period after the death of C.Muniswamy Naidu. In view of the admitted relationship between the parties, the entries in the revenue records may not have much relevance while deciding the petition for interim injunction, where the prayer is for restraining alienation of property pending disposal of the Suit. 29. Temporary injunction is discretionary order generally granted for the purpose of maintaining the status-quo with a view to protect the interest of the parties pending disposal of the Suit. So the main object of granting a temporary injunction is to maintain status-quo pending litigation. While examining the question of prima facie case, the Court has to satisfy that the claim has no frivolous or fictitious. Order XXXIX Rule 1A C.P.C., also covers issues relating to passing of an Order restraining the alienation pending suit. 30. So the main object of granting a temporary injunction is to maintain status-quo pending litigation. While examining the question of prima facie case, the Court has to satisfy that the claim has no frivolous or fictitious. Order XXXIX Rule 1A C.P.C., also covers issues relating to passing of an Order restraining the alienation pending suit. 30. In the instant case, the allegation is that, 5th and 6th Respondents are trying to alienate a portion of Plaint Schedule Properties pending Suit on the ground that it is a self-acquired property and not joint family property, which according to us requires adjudication during the course of trial. If the relief of interim injunction or status-quo, as prayed for by the Appellants is not granted and if Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 alienate the property, as apprehended by the Appellants, subsequent purchasers have to be added as party to the Suit at a later point of time, which amounts to multiplicity of litigation. 31. Having regard to the above, the Order passed by the trial Court refusing to grant temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating the Plaint Schedule Properties pending disposal of the Suit, is unsustainable. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice would be met and satisfy the requirement of Order XLIII C.P.C., if the parties are directed to maintain status-quo of the properties in dispute till the disposal of the Suit. 32. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed off directing all the parties to the Suit to maintain status-quo with regard to the properties in dispute till disposal of the Suit. Further, the trial Court shall dispose of the Suit as early as possible. No order as to costs. 33. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.