leaving behind his two sons, namely, Sheo Shankar Sah and Jay Shankar Sah, defendant no.6. After the demise of Bishundeo Sah, the said Sheo Shankar Sah and Jay Shankar Sah partitioned the property in question with mutual consent and the said partition was acted upon by them. Respondent no.1 Meena Devi who happens to be the daughter of Bishundeo Sah was got married in the year 1974 and she left her share in the property in question in favour of the aforesaid two sons of Bishundeo Sah. So Meena Devi has no right, title and interest in the property in question. It is further submitted by the appellants that during pendency of the case, the said Meena Devi sold out the part of the property in question on 09.04.2011 and defendant no.6, namely, Jay Shankar Sah sold out the part of the property in question vide two sale deeds dated 17.03.2011 and now they are adamant to sell out the rest of the property in question and to change its nature. It is further submitted that the said Jay Shankar Sah had died leaving behind his widow, son and daughter, namely, appellants as his heirs and legal representatives and they happens to be co-sharers in the property in question and has got prima facie case and in case of not restraining the respondents from disposing of the rest of the property in question and changing its nature, it will result into multiplicity of litigation and would cause irreparable injury to the appellants. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned lower Court is liable to be set aside and respondents be restrained from disposing of the rest of
