Back
2013 Supreme(Pat) 471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
AKHILESH CHANDRA, J.
Prabhu Datta Singh & Ors. – Plaintiffs/Appellants
Versus
Manorma Singh & Ors. – Defendants/Respondents
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 124 of 2011
Decided On : 17-04-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Syed Firoj Raza, Khatim Reza.
For the Respondents: M/s. Surendra Kr. Singh, Praveen Prabesh.
To obtain an ad interim injunction, the party seeking the injunction must prove a prima facie case to go to trial.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - Order 39 rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. - 1951 Relinquishment Deed - 1962 Gift Deed - Land Ceiling Act - Prima Facie Case
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against the refusal of ad interim injunction in a partition suit involving properties inherited from a common ancestor. The plaintiff claimed a share in the properties and sought to restrain a defendant from alienating specific lands. The defendant contested, citing a relinquishment deed and gift deed by the common ancestor, and argued that the plaintiff lacked a cogent reason for the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case as the common ancestor had already dealt with the disputed property through a relinquishment deed and a gift deed. The court also noted that the documents filed during the appeal had no bearing on the suit land, and thus, the requirements for an ad interim injunction were not fulfilled.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff had a prima facie case to warrant an ad interim injunction, considering the actions of the common ancestor in relation to the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to obtain an ad interim injunction, the party seeking the injunction must prove a prima facie case to go to trial. In this case, the plaintiff's silence about the relinquishment deed and the lack of evidence to support the claim led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
This is an appeal preferred against order dated 07.02.2011 passed by Sub-Judge – VII, Gaya, in Title Partition Suit No. 15/10/216/10, refusing the prayer of ad interim injunction made on behalf of plaintiff appellant.
2. The admitted case of the parties is that one Late Ram Nandan Prasad Singh who died in the month of October 2002, followed by his widow Smt. Kusum Kumari Devi who also died in the year 2007, was common ancestor of the parties and plaintiff appellants are heirs (husband’s sons and daughters) of their deceased daughter Nirmala Singh, and respondents are three other surviving daughters namely, Manorma Singh, Shila Singh and Meena Singh besides son and daughter of Meena Singh, since in favour of one of the daughter of Meena Singh, Saumya Kumari, defendant no. 6, there are some deeds of gift executed by her deceased maternal grand mother Kusum Kumari Devi.
3. The plaintiff appellant has come out with the suit claiming 1/4th share in the entire suit properties being class – I, heirs of deceased late Ram Nandan Prasad Singh and his widow on being aware of about the deeds of gift etc. through notices issued in C.W.J.C. No. 17075/2009 with a relief besides other that on adjudication of deeds of gift a preliminary decree of partition to the extent of plaintiff share in suit property be passed.
4. And in schedule – B, they have given description of various lands said to be allotted in the unit of Ram Nandan Pd. Singh and his wife Kusum Kumari Devi in Ceiling Case No. 156/1973-74, and at the foot of said Schedule – B, there is description of details of suit property covering under Khata No. 16 in village Karamdih and Khata No. 102/191 in village Chandauti. But by filing separate petition under order 39 rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. they prayed for ad-interim injunction to restrain defendant no. 6 only from alienating the lands of village Karamdih under Khata No. 16.
5. The claim of the defendant appellant has been contested by stating that said Ram Nandan Pd. Singh had already executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of his wife in the year 1951 and also executed deed of gift in her favour in the year 1962, and the properties in question exclusively belongs to Late Kusum Kumari Devi, who as absolute owner had dealt with the properties and in that course also executed various deeds of gift in favour of defendant respondent no. 6 and none of other heirs have any grievance against such transactions but of the plaintiff appellants having no cogent and convincing reason.
6. Much stress has been given by learned counsel for the appellant that if the lands in question are disposed of by defendant no. 6 nothing shall remain for final adjudication and during course of argument in appeal, in order to meet the question raised by this court, whether said Ram Nandan Pd. Singh after executing deed of relinquishment or deed of gift in favour of his wife had ever dealt with the subject matter therein, by filing supplementary affidavit, three documents, one, by way of objection petition filed by Ram Nandan Pd. Singh against notice issued under Land Ceiling Act in Land Ceiling Case No. 156/1973-74 has been filed, wherein in paragraph 7 there is reference of intention of keeping schedule – 5 land for him and on going through the said schedule – 5, in Annexure – 8, there is no whisper of the lands in Khata No. 16 of village – Karamdih, another document is filed to show that some lands were exchanged by Kusum Kumari Devi with one Babulal Singh but what purpose it is going to serve is not at all explained, and the third document is a deed of sale executed by Ram Nandan Pd. Singh on 13.09.1969 in favour of one Sidheshwar Prasad to show that lands covered under deed of gift executed by Ram Nandan Pd. Singh in favour of his wife Kusum Kumari Devi has been dealt with by him, but, for the purpose of present appeal, wherein question of injunction is confined to the lands under Khata No. 16, such document and such assertion has no relevancy since it does n
