“4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record, of the case carefully. The point in controversy raging between the parties is as to whether the suit property is joint property of the parties or it has been partitioned or not or whether the defendants have raised any construction thereupon and if so its effect. The stand of the defendants is that they are in exclusive possession of the suit property and have also raised construction over some of the khasra numbers, as detailed above. Now the record on the file has to be examined by this Court for finding prima facie case of the matter as interim injunction can be granted in favour of a party only if prima facie case is made out, balance of convenience also lies in his favour and he is likely to suffer irreparable loss with the decline of interim injunction. On the fulfillment of above referred three ingredients, the Courts issue the interim injunction in favour of a party. Keeping in view the above referred basic ingredients governing application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, this Court proceeds to examine the documents on the record. Vide copy of jamabandi for the year 2004-05, the parties are recorded joint owners in the suit property and it has not been partitioned as per copy of jamabandi on the record and statutory presumption of truth is attached to the entry of jamabandi. Similarly, copies of khasra girdawaris for the year from 1990-91 to 2008-09 have reiterated the joint-ness of the suit property. The plaintiff has also filed an application for partition of the suit land which is pending before A.C.I-Grade, Malout. Vide certified copyof application dated 19.9.2009, placed on the record, it has been indicated that partition proceedings are pending before the revenue authorities between the parties qua the suit property. So far as the fact that the suit property had already been partitioned is not prima facie established by any document on the record. The photostat copy of the conveyance deed