The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant injunction to protect the property during the pendency of the appeal, especially when the appellant's claim has been dismissed and the deities have been granted letters of administration with respect to the property.

1. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma on behalf of the respondent and the learned senior counsel, Mr. Sukumar Sinha on behalf of the appellant on I.A. No. 4407 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The defendant no.6, appellant has tiled this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1998 passed by Sri Awadhesh Kumar Verma, 1st Additional District Judge, Madhubani in title suit no. 8 of 1997 whereby the plaintiff-respondent's suit for grant of letters of administration over the suit property has been decreed.

3. The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid injunction application stating that the appellant has transferred some of the lands of Sri Sri 108 Ram Janaki Jee, Sri Lakshman Ji, Sri Hanuman Lala Ji and Sri Ganesh Ji installed in the temple and is further contemplating to sell the subject matter and in fact, has presented the sale deed for registration and, therefore, the injunction application has been filed with a prayer to restrain the appellant from alienating, transferring, dealing with or in any manner encumbering or interfering with or damaging the suit property till disposal of this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the owner of the land namely Sri Deo Narayan Nayak executed and registered a Will dated 27.2.1989 in favour of the deities installed in the temple. Prior to the said execution of Will on 19.11.1984, the said Sri Deo Narayan Nayak dedicated some of his property in the name of deities by a Samarpannama and he himself was Shivayat and later on, he executed the Will. Sri Deo Narayan Nayak died issueless and the Will was the last Will. The appellant contested the case and, therefore, the probate case was registered as title suit and, thereafter, the case was decided. The appellant filed written statement claiming that he inherited the property of Sri Deo Narayan Nayak as he was "Kritrim Putra" of Deo Narayan Nayak and on the basis of that, he had filed succession certificate case although succession case for immovable property is not maintainable. The learned Court below decided succession case no. 27 of 1989 along with this probate case and by the common judgment decreed the probate case and dismissed the succession case. Against the judgment and award, the appellant filed two First Appeals but during the pendency of the appeal, he is transferring at random the lands for which .the respondent no. 1 has been .granted letters of administration. The transfer has been admitted by the appellant and, therefore, he is liable to be restrained during the pendency of the appeal.

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel, Mr. Sukumar Sinha appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in probate case, no injunction can be granted because there is no dispute between the parties regarding the corporeal right to property in the probate case. The learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in Patna Lower (sic-Law?) Reporter 1998 Patna 21 (Chandrika Pandey vs. Ghanshyam Pandey) and submitted that it cannot be said that any property is involved in the probate case, hence, interim injunction cannot be granted. A counter-affidavit has also been filed agitating the claim made in the probate case and succession case.

6. Admittedly, the appellant filed succession case no. 27 of 1989 claiming inheritance of the suit property on the basis that he was adopted as "Kritrim Putra" by Sri Deo Narayan Nayak in the year 1952. The respondent i.e. the deities filed probate case. After considering the claims of the parties by the impugned judgment and decree, the succession case of the appellant has been dismissed disbelieving his case of "Kritrim Putra". The learned Court below also allowed the probate case and granted letters of administration with respect to the properties involved in Will. It also appears that prior to execution of Will i.e. in the year 1984, some properties were