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.

Arun Kumar Jha, J.

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 10.07.2015 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bettiah in Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2012, affirming the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-III, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 111 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the prayer of the plaintiffs/petitioners for grant of injunction on the suit land has been rejected.

2. The conspectus of the case, as it emerges from the record, is that the petitioners are plaintiffs, who have filed Title Suit No. 111 of 2010 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran seeking declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the property mentioned in Schedule 6 of the plaint and alternative prayer has also been made that if the plaintiffs are dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, a decree for recovery of possession may also be granted in their favour. The plaintiffs also prayed for a declaration that sale deeds dated 04.04.2009/06.04.2009 executed by defendant 1st party were illegal, void and nullity. The plaintiffs have also prayed for grant of injunction. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the title suit. The plaintiffs gave a genealogy with their plaint submitting that one Dhorha Sah had two sons namely, Khirodhan Sah and Sitaram Sah. Khirodhan Sah was married to Mantura Kuer and they have three sons namely, Shambhu Sah, Lakhan Sah and Jagan Sah, who are defendant nos. 13, 14 and 15 in the said title suit and husbands of the plaintiffs/petitioners, respectively. Sitaram Sah had married twice and had one son, Jokhan Sah from his first wife and a daughter Sangita Devi, from his second wife. Jokhan Sah had five sons and a daughter, who are defendant nos. 3 to 9 in the title suit and also respondent nos. 3 to 9 in the present petition. Second wife of Sitaram Sah, namely Gena Kuar, is defendant no.10/respondent no. 10 and defendant no. 11/respondent no. 11 is daughter of Sitaram Sah. The wife of Khirodhan Sah is Mantura Kuer who has been made defendant no. 12 in the title suit. After the death of Dhorha Sah, the joint ancestral property of the family was partitioned between Khirodhan Sah and Sitaram Sah as wife of Dhorha Sah predeceased him. The property purchased in the name of wife of Dhorha Sah, namely Shivratni Devi, was also partitioned between two brothers. The dispute is with regard to the property purchased in the name of Shivratni Devi and the said property is having area of 1 bigha 4 dhurs in Plot Nos. 617, 806, 805 and 808 of Holding No. 20. Sitaram Sah got Schedule III property from the purchased land of Shivratni Kuer in the following manner:-

Plot No. 805 – 3 katha 10 dhur

Plot No. 806 – 4 katha 5 dhur

Plot No. 808 – 1 katha 11 dhur

Plot No. 617 – 16 dhur.

On the other hand, Khirodhan Sah got his share in Schedule IV property in the following manner:-

Plot No. 617 – 6 katha 4 dhur

Plot No. 805 – 7 dhur

Plot No. 806 – 3 katha 11 dhur.

It further appears that after death of Khirodhan Sah his wife and sons came into possession of their respective share out of the property which passed to Khirodhan Sah. The wife of Khirodhan Sah, Mantura Kuer, transferred 4 katha of land of her share from plot nos. 617 and 806 in favour of the plaintiffs who are wives of her sons. It has been submitted by the plaintiffs that in the description of the property, instead of plot nos. 806, plot no. 805 has been mentioned but the boundary etc. were correct and this plot no. 806 is subject mater of gift along with plot no. 617. After getting the gift from their mother-in-law, the plaintiffs sold 16 dhur land to