THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2439 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur in I.A. No.121 of 2011 in O.S. No.12 of 2011 dated 30.05.2011. The 2nd respondent herein is the daughter-in-law of the 1st petitioner, and the 1st respondent is the 2nd respondent’s minor son. The 1st respondent represented by his guardian filed the said suit for partition of the suit schedule property. An application, under Or. XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C, was filed to restrain the petitioners herein from alienating the petition schedule property to third parties by way of temporary injunction. The Court below held that Ex.R-1 registered partition deed dated 13.06.1980 was effected between the husband of the 1st petitioner herein, and his two brothers; Ex.R-1 registration extract of partition dated 22.08.1983 showed that items 1 to 3 fell to the share of the husband of the 1st petitioner; the 1st petitioner herein had purchased Ac.14.40 cts in Sy. No.373; and she had purchased other properties from her vendors in Sy. No.36-6B. The order also refers to certain properties sold by the 1st petitioner to her vendees. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Kashi Math Samsthan v. Srimad Subhindra Thirtha Swamy[1], the Court below held that a minor’s interest was required to be protected by the Court; the respondents herein (plaintiffs in the suit) had sought partition claiming 1/4th share as that of the 1st respondent herein; he claimed that the property was not self- acquired, but was joint family, property; any alienation made by the respondent, pending disposal of the suit, would be hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; whether or not the respondents-plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the property would be subject to the result of the suit; an injunction was an equitable relief, and is generally granted taking equities into consideration ; the respondents-plaintiffs had established a prima facie case; the balance of convenience was in their favour; if the petitioners-defendants were allowed to alienate the petition schedule properties, pending disposal of the suit, the respondents- plaintiffs would be the real sufferers; no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners-defendants if a temporary injunction was granted restraining them from alienating the petition schedule properties; and, as a minor’s rights were required to be protected, the equitable relief of injunction should be granted in his favour. The petitioners herein have chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the said order. While Ms. A. Triveni, Learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs would contend that the C.R.P. itself is not maintainable, as the petitioners have directly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court without availing the appellate remedy under the C.P.C; Sri K. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would assert that the petitioners were entitled to directly invoke the jurisdiction of the Court against an order of temporary injunction passed in a Suit. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to delve on this aspect in as much as this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would neither sit in appeal nor would it substitute its views for that of the Court below, as the jurisdiction which it exercises is supervisory. In any event it is only when the order suffers from a patent illegality; or substantially injustice would ensue if the Court refrains from interference, would this Court be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order under challenge. The fact that the 1st respondent-1st plaintiff is the grandson of the 1st petitioner- defendant is not in dispute; it is also not in dispute that the 1st petitioner is a minor; the equitable order of injunction was passed by the Court below to protect the interests of the minor; all that the Court below has injuncted the petitioners from doing is to alienate the property; and the petitioners have neither been dispossessed nor are they prevented from using the properties in question in the manner they choose except being prohibited from alienating the said properties. The order of the Court below neither suffers from a patent illegality nor can the petitioners herein be said to have suffered grave and irreparable prejudice necessitating interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Viewed from any angle, the order of the Court below does not necessitate interference. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Date: 11.11.2011 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] AIR 2010 SC 296