Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
Civil Misc. Jur. No.619 of 2023
(21.12.2023)
Madheshwar Yadav & Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
Sunil Kumar & Anr. ... Respondents
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 – Injunction – Grant of interlocutory injunction is a discretionary remedy and, in the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or rejecting to grant, the Court has to take into consideration three guidelines: (i) Whether the party seeking injunction has made out a prima facie case, this is sine qua non; (ii) Whether balance of convenience lies in his favour; i.e., whether it could cause greater inconvenience to him if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the other side would be put to, if the injunction is granted, (iii) if the injunction is not granted, whether the party seeking injunction would have to suffer irreparable loss – Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners are not in possession of the suit land rather the petitioners are subsequent purchasers, that too, their sale deed is after 19 years of the sale of defendant no. 1 – notwithstanding what revenue authorities have ordered or observed, title will only be decided by a competent Civil Court, that too, after proper trial and not in a perfunctory manner – Though much stress has been put on the difference in names of village in sale deeds of respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1, yet the petitioners did not bring on record the copies of sale deed of defendant no. 1 – Admittedly the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 is in possession – At this stage, prima facie case is in favour of respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 – the petitioner/plaintiffs failed to show prima facie case in their favour and granting injunction at his stage would cause greater inconvenience to respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 – Admission of the plaintiffs that defendant no. 1 is in possession of land and has been making construction over it, has automatically fitted the balance of convenience in favour of defendant no. 1 – If the petitioners are not having the prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favour, they would not suffer any irreparable loss – no ground of interference made out – Instant petition dismissed. (paras 9 to 13)
Mandati Ranganna Vs. T Ramachandra, (2008) 11 SCC 1 – Distinguished.
Terene Traders Vs. Rameshchandra Jamnadas & Co., AIR 1987 SC 1492; Prakash Harishchandra Muranjan Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, (2009) 3 SCC 432 – Relied.
Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The matter has been taken up for hearing for the first time on mentioning being made on behalf of the petitioners and with the consent of the parties, I intend to dispose of the petition at this stage itself.
3. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by learned District Judge, Gaya in Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge, Gaya has rejected the Misc. Appeal and confirmed the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by learned Sub Judge-II, Gaya in Title Suit No. 155 of 2021/96 of 2021 filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Judge-II, Gaya has rejected the ad-interim injunction petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
4. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners as it appears from the record is that the petitioners are the plaintiffs before the learned trial court and defendant nos. 1 and 2 and respondent nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The petitioners purchased parts of two plots of land. A portion of R.S. Plot No. 90, Khata No. 141 having an area of 0.42 acres from Ratan Gope, Vijay Yadav, Mahavir Yadav, Surendra Yadav and Indradev Yadav, sons of Bachan Gope jointed executed sale deed No. 16651 dated 23.09.2019 for consideration amount of Rs.19,20,000/- with specified boundaries. Further petitioner no. 1/ plaintiff no. 1 purchased another piece of land vide sale deed No. 16365 of R.S. Plot No. 89 of Khata No. 39 having an area of 0.32 acres with specified boundaries for consideration amount of Rs.17,00,000/- only. Both the abovenoted plots were carved out of a portion of C.S. Plot No. 33 appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 55. After purchase of the land, the petitioners/plaintiffs came into possession of the suit land. The land purchased by the petitioners is situated in Thana No. 351, Mauza – Dhanawan, Police Station – Bodh Gaya, Anchal – Bodh Gaya, District – Gaya. Further case of the petitioners is that defendant no.1/ respondent no. 1 in Mutation Case No. 5580R27/2019-20 and Mutation Case No. 5357/2019-20 claimed that he has purchased the land from one Binod Kumar alias Binod Sharma, Son of Diwan Chand Sharma of village – Dhanawan vide sale deed dated 07.02.2000 but said Binod Kumr @ Binod Sharma has no title or possession of the suit land and he was not entitled in any manner to transfer the land or to execute any sale deed. Further the land was never mutated in favour of Binod Sharma. The description of land was not correct in the sale deed of Binod Sharma. For this reason the descriptions of land in the sale deed of respondent no. 1/ defendant no.1 is for some other land as name of the village has been mentioned as Dhandhwa with Thana No. 357 which is of village – Dhandhwa and not of village Dhanwan. Even then the respondent no. 1/ defendant no. 1 threatened the plaintiffs on 19.01.2021 to dispossess them from their land.
The petitioners have further mentioned that admittedly the land in question belonged to one Somar Gope who was having two sons Chhotan Gope and Lotan Gope. Chhotan Gope was blessed with one daughter Jamuni Devi. Lotan Gope executed a sale deed in favour of one Doman in the year, 1968. Further Jamuni Devi who was half share, executed a sale deed in favour of Ganiya Devi with respect to Plot No. 33 on 07.04.1972. Later on, Doman executed a sale deed in favour of Binod Sharma, defendant no. 2 in the title suit with respect to Plot No. 33 of village – Dhandhwa (not Dhanawan). Doman executed the sale deed with respect to land of village Dhandhwa, Thana No. 357, Tauzi No.3160 whereas Plot No. 33 of village – Dhanawan is under Tauzi No. 104, Thana No. 351 which is under dispute. Further Ganiya Devi also executed a sale deed in favour of Binod Sharma for land situated in village- Dhandhwa, Thana No. 357, Tauzi No.m 3160. Subsequently, Binod Sharma executed sale deed i
Court could not have come into finding that there was a balance of convenience in not granting an injunction.
The court clarified that a prima facie case requires a fair question giving rise to a triable issue, warranting injunction to prevent property alienation during litigation.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
The legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot retrospectively undo a legal status created by a predecessor, and a valid explanation for inaction over a long period is required.
The courts ruled that discrepancies in agreements and the existence of a registered sale-deed established the defendants as rightful owners, negating the petitioner's claim for a temporary injunction....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
