CAV JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed on behalf of plaintiffs-appellants against the order dated 30.5.2019 passed by learned Sub-Judge, VII, Nawada in title suit No. 427 of 2018 by which the order of status quo granted on 14.3.2019 was vacated and application of plaintiffs/appellants filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for grant of temporary injunction against defendant nos.1 to 9 restraining them from alienation of suit land and interfering with their peaceful possession was refused.

3. Plaintiffs / appellants have filed title suit being title suit No.427 of 2018, which is pending in the court of Sub- Judge-VII, Nawada for declaration of their right, title, interest, possession and for permanent injunction over the suit land and to further declare that defendant 1st set have acquired no right, tittle and interest in the suit land on the basis of six registered sale deeds dated 26.6.2018 and 29.6.2018 executed by defendant 2nd set in favour of defendant 1st set which are void and without consideration and not binding upon plaintiffs and are fit to be set aside.

4. Plaintiffs in their petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 stated that defendants are negotiating with the local persons to alienate the suit land, with intent to cause loss and harm to the plaintiffs and are also trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land whereas plaintiffs are in peaceful possession over the suit land and defendants have never came in possession over the suit land on the basis of above sale deeds. Plaintiffs have strong prima facie case and balance of convenience also lies in their favour and they would suffer irreparable loss if defendants succeeded in transferring the suit property creating third party right.

5. Defendant nos.1 to 9 have appeared and filed their show cause and have stated that plaintiffs do not have any prima facie case and they are not the legal heirs or successors of Kanhai Singh from whom they claim to have derived their title. Neither balance of convenience lies in their favour nor they will suffer any irreparable loss if injunction is refused.

6. Plaintiffs in their plaint have pleaded that ancestors of plaintiffs were landlords having their proprietary rights and apart from it, had their Khas and Bakast land in several villages who settled their Khas land with several persons including Kanahi |Singh, son of Umrao Singh who was one of their family members and recognized him as Raiyat. Proprietary right of landlords vested in the State of Bihar after abolition of Jamindari and said landlords while settling lands to different raiyats also fixed rent and accordingly, rent receipts were granted to all settllees on payment of rent to the landlord and landlords with details of lands, area and rent of all the settllees of the lands of village Ghasiadih, P.S. Rajauli, Nawada submitted return before the Collector including that of Kanahi Singh who became raiyat over the land and register II was opened in his name and rent receipts granted. R.S. khatiyan was also prepared in the name of Kanahi Singh under Khata No.4 having 18 plots measuring 15.35 acres which was published on 18.9.76.

7. No objection was raised by anyone during revisional survey operation and Kanahi Singh died issue-less during jointness and his property was inherited by the ancestors of plaintiffs/appellants who remained in joint cultivating possession and subsequently there was oral partition in the year 1990 and they came in possession over their respective shares. The compensation with respect to acquisition of 2.25 acres of land of Ghasiadih recorded in the name of Kanahi Singh was paid to the joint family of plaintiffs/appellants. Anchal inspector after inquiry, submitted his report dated 23.10.2018 stating therein that rent is being paid by the members of family of plaintiffs/appellants.

8. It was lastly submitted that plaintiffs/appellants are owners and title holders of the suit land and, as such, they have