TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER PASSED BELOW EXH. NO. 05 ...

which are discussed along with reasoning as follows.2Points for determination FINDINGS1) Whether plaintiff proves that prima faciecase is in her favour ?2) Whether plaintiff proves that the balanceof convenience lies in her favour?3) Whether plaintiff proves that she willsuffer irreparable loss if the application isnot granted?...No...No...No4) What order? As per final order.R E A S O N S6) As to points No. 1 to 3 :­ Plaintiff contended that suit property isancestral property and defendants are trying to alienate the same withoutconsent of the plaintiff therefore, plaintiff is suffering irreparable loss asmeans of livelihood of the plaintiff is income earned from the share of cropgiven by the defendant No.1 to plaintiff towards her share. Plaintiff had filedcopy of Gaonamuna No. 8 and 7/12 extract. After perusing both thedocuments, it appears that name of defendant No.1 is mutated in the revenuerecord as a owner thereof. Whereas no any document has been filed by theplaintiff prima facie to show that the suit property is the ancestral property,therefore, at this stage it cannot be ascertain that suit property is ancestralproperty and plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if application is not grantedand therefore, no prima facie case and balance of convenience appears infavour of the plaintiff, I therefore, answer points No.1 to 3 in the negative.7) As to point No. 4 :­ In view of findings given to the points No.1 to