I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Waliur Rehman on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents on the interlocutory application No.3632 of 2011. The parties have filed counter affidavit, supplementary affidavit and rejoinder etc.

2. The plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.01.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge 8th Saran at Chapra in Title Suit No.184 of 1997 dismissing the plaintiff suit for declaration of title and further for declaration that the defendants have no title over the suit property. The learned Court below dismissed the said suit.

3. The appellant filed the interlocutory application No.3632 alleging that during the pendency of this appeal, the defendant-respondent transferred major portion of the suit property to different persons by executing sale deeds through power of attorney holder, Fahin Akhtar. Many sale deeds have been annexed with the injunction application. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the respondents are not restrained from transferring the suit property further the appellant shall suffer loss and irreparable injury and in the event if the appeal will be allowed, he will not be able to recover the possession of the property from various transferee and moreover, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the transferee is trying to make construction over the transferred land during the pendency of the appeal. In such view of the matter, the appellant had no option but to file the application for injunction.

4. It appears that subsequent transferee has been added as respondent in this First Appeal on the application filed by the appellant who are respondent No.5 to 25.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2 and also on behalf of the transferees. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2 written as rejoinder at paragraph 22, it has been mentioned that these defendants-respondents are giving undertaking that they will not alienate any property in future without permission of the Court. The learned senior counsel in support of the said statement has submitted before the Court that because of family requirement, the property has been sold and, therefore, the necessity has been fulfilled. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 & 2 will not transfer any further land and if necessary will arise in future during the pendency of the appeal, they will file application for permission to transfer but at this stage, their undertaking may be noted. In view of these undertaking given by the respondent No.1 & 2 that they will not transfer the property without the permission of the Court, the same is recorded here in this order so as to bind them.

6. So far the counter affidavit of respondent No.3 to 25 is concerned, they have stated that they may be allowed to construct the residential house at their own risk and if the appeal will be allowed, they will not claim equity and the appellant will get the possession of the property with structure thereon. Because, they have purchased the property with a view to construct a residential house. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this appeal is of the year 2011 and it is not likely to dispose of in near future and, therefore, for unlimited period, the purchasers who are bonafide purchasers cannot be restrained from enjoying the fruits of their property because by the transfer, the defendant-respondent have got valid title.

7. In reply to the above submission, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the ground that the appeal will not be disposed of in near future, the respondents cannot be allowed to construct residential house because in such circumstances, the real difficulty will be faced by the appellant only after if the First Appeal is allowed.

8. The respondent cannot be allowed to construct even at t