IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury before granting a temporary injunction under Order 39 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous application is filed against the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge-10, Patna in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 26 of 2016 confirming the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-1, Patna in Title suit No. 68 of 2013 by which the learned Court below has refused to grant temporary injunction to the plaintiff/petitioner on the ground that the plaintiff has no prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is plaintiff in the suit, filed Title Suit No. 68 of 2013 in the Court of Sub-Judge 5th Patna which was subsequently transferred to the learned Court of Sub-Judge, 1st, Patna claiming that the land detailed in Schedule 1 in the suit was owned and possessed by defendant No. 1 Jagdish Sharma who got it by partition from other pattidars and his name was mutated in the revenue record. Defendant No. 1 has executed a registered deed of power of attorney dated 16.06.2008 in favour of proforma defendant No. 4 (husband of the plaintiff) authorising him to look after his property mentioned in Schedule 1 as well as to sale the land and to do all other works as mentioned therein. Defendant No. 1 also received Rs. 9 Lakhs from the proforma defendant No. 4 on the day he executed the power of attorney and a money receipt was issued on a stamp paper duly signed by the witnesses acknowledging that he had no right to put any objection if the said land is sold by the proforma defendant. Accordingly, the proforma defendant sold the land by two registered sale deeds 30.08.2008 and 24.02.2010 in favour of plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession and since then she has absolute right, title and possession over the same and after mutating the same in her favour, she is getting regular rent receipt from the State of Bihar.

4. The further case of the plaintiff is that after sometime defendant second set started claiming the land of plot Nos. 1325 and 1326 as mentioned in the schedule 1 on the ground that they have purchased the same from defendant No. 1. On inquiry it was found that defendant No. 1 got the power of attorney dated 16.06.2008 cancelled vide a registered cancellation deed dated 01.07.2011 and thereafter sold these two plots (9 decimals of land of plot Nos. 1325 and 1326) vide registered sale deed dated 15.11.2011 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff is that defendant No. 1, after execution of the power of attorney dated 16.06.2008, has no authority in the eye of law to cancel the said power of attorney on 01.07.2011 specially in the background that the land have already been transferred to plaintiff vide two registered sale deeds dated 30.08.2008 and 24.02.2010 as such the cancellation of power of attorney deed dated 01.07.2011 and execution of sale deed dated 15.11.2011 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is totally illegal, collusive, null and void and inoperative and as such not binding upon her which is still coming in peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Further case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 is negotiating to sale the other land of Schedule No. 1 Property causing irreparable loss to her since the purchasers are trying to take the possession of the land in question illegally sold to them.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court has dismissed the injunction petition of the plaintiff and learned lower appellate Court also dismissed the miscellaneous appeal filed on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff without any valid reason and without appreciating that after execution of power of attorney by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 4 who executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 left no right to transfer the said land under the power of attorney. He further submits that cancellation deed dated 01.07.2011 proves i