JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Judgment dated 30.06.2023 (Annexure 9) passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2022 by the learned District Judge-III, Latehar and also the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 02 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No. 01 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Latehar whereby the learned courts below have rejected the application of petitioners/ plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for the temporary injunction. Factual Background of the Case 2. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have filed the Original Suit No. 01 of 2022 claiming following reliefs:- (a) To declare the Gift Deed No. 1671 dated 03.12.1998 made by the present respondent no. 4 Krishnadeo Pandey in favour of respondent no. 2 Sarita Devi as illegal, null, void ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiffs and further that the said gift deed may be cancelled. (b) To declare the sale deed no. 364 dt. 08.02.2021 executed by the respondent no.2 Sarita Devi in favour of respondent no.1 Gita Real States Ltd. Through its Proprietor Vivek Kumar as illegal, null, void ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiffs and further that the said sale deed may be cancelled. (c) To declare the joint right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs with the other coparceners over the suit land and further to confirm their possession. (d) For issuance of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs alongwith other coparceners. (e) Any other reliefs for which the plaintiffs shall get entitled including Court fee and the cost of litigation. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the coparceners with their father Krishna Deo Pandey, who is the respondent/defendant no.4 in their ancestral property. The father of plaintiffs has executed a gift deed No. 1671 on 03.12.1998 in favour of Sarita Devi, (second wife of executant) the defendant no. 2 without consent of plaintiffs or existence of any legal necessity out of his share in the ancestral property. The gift deed has not been accepted by the defendant no. 2 as there is no recital in the gift deed. It is alleged that lands appertaining to Khata no. 47, plot no. 1448 corresponding to New Khata No. 300, plot no. The gift deed has not been accepted by the defendant no. 2 as there is no recital in the gift deed. It is alleged that lands appertaining to Khata no. 47, plot no. 1448 corresponding to New Khata No. 300, plot no. 2525 measuring 3/4 decimals, a house and a well has been constructed by the plaintiffs and they are residing and carrying on their business by opening mobile shop and a small hotel. The fact of gift deed came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs on 15.01.2013. The defendant no. 2 Sarita Devi permanently left the village Balumath and settled at Village Kandri in the District Ranchi in the year 2005 and never came into possession over the suit land on strength of alleged null and void gift deed executed in her favour. The said Sarita Devi executed a Sale Deed No. 364 dated 08.02.2021 in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of the suit land and that the defendant no. 1 has been ever since then making constant and concerted efforts to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. The plaintiffs had also filed two Partition Suits bearing no. 25 of 2014 and 61 of 2021 which were, however, subsequently withdrawn by them. It is their case that the defendant no. 4 had appeared in the above suits and pleaded that he had made the above gift deed under threat and coercion. The suit land as mentioned in Schedule-B of the original suit measuring a total area of 43 1/2 decimals was located under Old Khata No. 20 and 47 and old Plot No. 1443, 1448 and 1449 at Mauja Balumath, Tola Kasiyadih, P.S. Balumath, erstwhile District of Palamau, present District Latehar at the time of the gift deed. Later, as per the sale deed no. 364 dated. 08.02.2021 the same is mentioned as 43 1/2 decimals under New Khata No. 300, New Plot No. 2423, 2523 and 2525 at Mauza Balumath, P.S. No. 91, P.S.-Balumath, District-Latehar. It is also the case of plaintiffs that as per the old record of rights the lands were recorded in the name of the Raiyats Budhu Pandey, Ram Juthan Pandey and Govind Pandey. Budhu Pandey got half share in the property and out of his two sons. Shankar Pandey died issueless and hence his other son Pun Prasad Pandey became the absolute owner of the property. Budhu Pandey got half share in the property and out of his two sons. Shankar Pandey died issueless and hence his other son Pun Prasad Pandey became the absolute owner of the property. After the death of Pun Prasad Pandey his two sons Brahmdeo Pandey and Krishandeo Pandey inherited the property jointly but they partitioned their property amicable in 1980 in which Krishandeo Pandey who is the respondent/defendant no.4 of the instant appeal/suit received 43 1/2 decimals of land of the suit property alongwith other land. Hence, the suit land came in the share of defendant no.4 and he alongwith his sons (the coparceners) had been in joint possession of the same. 4. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for granting injunction in their favour and restraining the defendants no. 1 & 2 from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land or cause any interference in their right, title, interest and peaceful possession. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment and order learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the learned court below have failed to properly appreciate the case of the plaintiffs. It is undisputed fact that the suit Scheduled B property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs appertaining to old Khata No. 20 Plot No. 1449 area 13¼ Decimal, old Khata No. 47 Plot No. 1448, 3¼ Decimals area along with house and well, old Khata No. 47 Plot No. 1443 Area 27 decimals, 43 ½ decimals inaggeregate corresponding to new Khata No. 300 plot nos. 2423, 2523 and 2525. It is submitted that petitioners/plaintiffs are coparceners of the suit property along with their father. The father of the plaintiffs had two wives first Shanti Devi and second Sarita Devi (defendant no.2) who lived with Krishnadeo Pandey as concubine without any valid solemnization of marriage. Plaintiffs are son of Krishna Deo Pandey from his first wife Shanti Devi. The gift deed of Coparcenary property without consent of petitioners executed by their father (defendant no.4) without any legal necessity is absolutely void and not enforceable under law. Therefore, sale deed executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 also does not pass any valid right, title and interest in favour of defendants/respondent no. 1. The gift deed of Coparcenary property without consent of petitioners executed by their father (defendant no.4) without any legal necessity is absolutely void and not enforceable under law. Therefore, sale deed executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 also does not pass any valid right, title and interest in favour of defendants/respondent no. 1. It is further submitted that the petitioners have filed an application for granting Status Quo order over the suit land as the respondent no.1 have become aggressive, violent and twice made deadly assault against the petitioners for which FIR bearing Balumath P.S. Case No. 75 of 2023 registered for the offence under Section 341, 342, 323, 325, 307, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code dated 20.05.2023 (annexure-5) and Balumath P.S. Case No. 91 of 2023 dated 22.06.2023 vide offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 354, 379, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure-7) have been instituted. The respondent no.1 has also filed an F.I.R. against the petitioners dated 28.05.2023 for assault as well as for the offence under SC/ST Act. Both the court below have failed to appreciate prima facie case of the petitioners. Petitioners are co-owners and in possession of the suit property and there is genuine claim of petitioners to be decided in respect of effect of gift deed executed by defendant no.4 in favour of defendant no.2. Admittedly, defendant no.2 never came into possession over the suit property rather she has sold disputed land in favour of the defendant no.1 The defendant/ Respondent No.1 is adopting muscle and money power against the petitioners. Since the petitioners are in possession of the suit property, hence balance of convenience also leans in their favour and in case the petitioners are forcibly dispossessed from the suit property, they would suffer irreparable loss and be deprived from their livelihood and residential house. Therefore, order for maintaining Status Quo till the disposal of the suit is necessary in this case setting aside the impugned orders. 6. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed only by respondent no.1. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that both the learned court below after considering each and every facts of the case has rightly refused the prayer for injunction of the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed only by respondent no.1. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that both the learned court below after considering each and every facts of the case has rightly refused the prayer for injunction of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the factual and legal aspect of the case as raised by the petitioners/plaintiffs that they form coparcenary along with their father in respect of suit property which is joint and ancestral property and it could not have been transferred by way of gift in favour of defendant no.2 are contested issues, which has yet to be decided on merits. The execution of gift deed by defendant no. 4 in favour of defendant no.2 was admitteded executed in the year 1998 and it is also admitted fact that the defendant no.2 has executed sale deed in favour of respondent no.1 in the year 2021 and he came into peaceful possession of the same raising boundary wall from one side and also developed some construction work. The suit land was mutated in the name of Sarita Devi in the year 2013 which was never challenged by the petitioners and the defendant no.4 has also never disputed the execution of gift deed in favour of Sarita Devi. Therefore, respondent no.1 has got valid right, title and possession over the suit property and present petitioners have no case to stand. There is prima facie case in favour of respondents, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is also lying in favour of respondents, as such there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding and orders of the court below. This petition has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through both the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and appellate court and also considered the materials placed on record. It appears that the learned trial court while deciding the application for interim injunction on the golden principles of law i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for grant of injunction has discussed the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sriman Narayan & Anr. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 760 , wherein it has been held as under. Ltd. Vs. Sriman Narayan & Anr. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 760 , wherein it has been held as under. 7……It is elementary that grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of the legal proceeding is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the Court. While exercising the discretion the Court normally applies the following tests :- (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. 8…….The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the exercise of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and remain uncertain till they are established on evidence at the trial. The relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before which that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The Court must weigh one need against another and determine where the "balance of convenience" lies. (See Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Coca Cola Co. & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 544 ) In Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden reported in (1990) 2 SCC 117 , the Hon’ble Apex Court discussing the principles to kept in mind in considering the prayer for interlocutory mandatory injunction observed: “16….. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief 17…. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion.” 8. It appears that both the learned court below have entered into deciding the title of the parties as per their documentary evidence and pleadings at the very initial stage of grant of interim injunction in the garb of interpretation of prima facie case. Admittedly in this case the property involved is ancestral property of the plaintiffs along with their father and dwelling house is also situated therein. It is also obvious that in spite of gift deed executed by father of the petitioners in favor of his second wife defendant no.2, the petitioners are still in possession of the suit property and carrying on their business having no other accommodation. A genuine cause about legality and effect of gift deed has been raised and yet to be decided on merits by the concerned trial court. At this juncture going into depth and delving to the prima facie title without seeing the prima facie case is certainly not justified under law. There is specific finding of the Honble Apex in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. At this juncture going into depth and delving to the prima facie title without seeing the prima facie case is certainly not justified under law. There is specific finding of the Honble Apex in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (supra) that the decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the exercise of the legal rights asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and remained uncertain till they are established on evidence at the trial. The relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before which that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. 9. In the instant case genuine issues regarding transfer by way of gift of the ancestral coparcenary property by father of petitioners in favour of step mother (concubine) of plaintiffs has been raised, which if decided in their favour the whole claim of defendant no.1 will fall on ground. Since the petitioners/plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property residing therein and carrying on business, therefore, denial of grant of injunction will cause much hardship to them as compared with the respondents and they would also suffer irreparable loss. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, impugned orders of are hereby set aside and this petition is allowed. Both parties are directed to maintain Status Quo in respect of suit property mentioned in Scheduled B to the plaint till the disposal of the Original Suit No. 1 of 2022 pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Latehar. 11. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible and both parties shall co-operate in early disposal of the case without seeking any unnecessary adjournment.