THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A. No. 931 of 2011 Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 17.06.2011, passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 1513 of 2011 in O.S. No. 201 of 2010, filed by the appellant praying to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent is no other than the brother of the appellant. During the life time of her parents, her father with the streethana of her mother, purchased the suit schedule property in the name of the respondent benami. The appellant is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property, and therefore, the appellant requested the respondent to give half share in the suit schedule property. The respondent after persuasions, agreed to give a portion of the suit schedule property and accordingly executed Will dated 16.09.2006. Thereafter, the respondent with a view to exclusively enjoy the suit schedule property, filed suit in O.S. No. 823 of 2010 on the file of the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, for eviction. During the pendency of the said suit, as the respondent was trying to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties, the appellant was constrained to file the present suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, and pending disposal of the suit, filed the present application, for grant of temporary injunction. The appellant is in physical possession and enjoyment of a portion of the suit schedule property, and this is evident from the fact that the respondent has himself filed suit for eviction of the appellant, and without even waiting for disposal of the said suit, passed the order under appeal, refusing to grant temporary injunction, even though the appellant made out prima facie case and balance of convenience is in her favour for grant of temporary injunction. As after passing the order under appeal, the suit filed by the respondent for eviction for eviction of the appellant was dismissed, the appellant has made out prima facie case to show that she is in physical possession and enjoyment of a part of the suit schedule property. Hence, he prayed that the order under appeal be set aside and the application filed by the appellant for grant of temporary injunction be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment under appeal. The principles that govern grant of temporary injunction are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Therefore, it may be noticed whether the appellant has made out prima facie case, balance of convenience is in her favour and irreparable loss would be caused if no injunction is granted, and if so, whether the Court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified in refusing to grant temporary injunction as prayed for by the appellant. Even though the appellant contends that her father purchased the suit schedule property with the streedhana of her mother benami in the name of the respondent, the fact remains, the appellant has not placed any material to show that her father has purchased the suit schedule property in the name of her brother with the streedhana property of her mother. On the other hand, the respondent produced Ex.B2-sale deed to show that he has purchased the suit schedule property with his money. It is his further case that the appellant is his sister and that he has permitted her to stay in a portion of the suit schedule property. The appellant except stating that the respondent tried to forcibly evict her and that she approached the police to give protection, did not file any material to show that she approached the police for grant of protection. According to her own version, she orally lodged complaint with the police. If really the respondent wanted to evict the appellant from the suit schedule property, he would not have filed suit for eviction. If she is in possession of the suit schedule property, she would be dispossessed only by due process of law. The appellant, admittedly, is claiming a share in the suit schedule property as co-sharer. The law is well settled that injunction cannot be granted against a co-sharer. As such, the appellant is not entitled to grant of temporary injunction. Be that as it may, in the absence of any material filed by the appellant to show that the suit schedule property was purchased by her father in the name of the respondent benami with the streethana of her mother, the Court below came to the conclusion that the appellant has not made out any prima facie case and there is no balance of convenience and no irreparable loss would be caused because if she succeeds in the suit, she will get share in the property. And having coming to such conclusion, the Court below by reason of the order under appeal dismissed the temporary injunction application, and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith, particularly when the appellant failed to satisfy any of the principles that govern the grant of temporary injunction. There is no merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 25th November, 2011 KSR