order. The partition in the family of the petitioner took place in Title Suit No. 17 of 1970. After partition in the family, the petitioner and the respondents bought the suit land measuring 7.14 acres on 10.07.1974 and the vendees , i.e., the petitioner and the respondents are entitled to identical share of 1/3rd each and for this reason, the plaintiff has filed the partition suit for 1/3rd share. Effectively, it is not a suit for partition of joint family property, rather it is a suit for declaration for title over 1/3rd of the suit property filed by the plaintiff/respondent 1st set. The deed of partition dated 17.06.1985 is an unregistered document and no reliance could be placed on it. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner/defendant has alienated the suit land during pendency of the suit. Further, the respondent 1st set/plaintiff is a co-purchaser and it is an admitted fact so, the plaintiff has a joint interest in the suit land and being a joint property, the plaintiff/respondent-1st set is supposedly in possession. Hence, balance of convenience also lies in his favour. Therefore, any alienation on part of the defendant/petitioner would cause irreparable loss. Hence, the plaintiff/respondent-1st set has got all the ingredients for grant of injunction in his favour and for this reason, the learned appellate court rightly allowed the appeals of the respondents.
