1. This application has been filed by the appellants in RSA No.136/2014 seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the OPs/respondents from occupying the Schedule-D land of the suit and/or doing any construction work in the suit land until disposal of the Second Appeal.

2. The brief background facts leading to the present application for temporary injunction is that the applicants as plaintiffs had preferred Title Suit No.451/2007 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati, inter alia, praying for a decree in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the present applicants as well as the defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 7 declaring their joint ownership of the suit property; a decree for cancellation of registered deed of sale bearing No.3735 dated 21.03.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 transferring the Schedule-D land; decree for a permanent injunction, decree for ejectment of the defendant No.2 from the suit property and recovery of khas possession and other consequential relief.

3. The basic case of the plaintiffs/applicants herein is that land measuring 8.80 Are originally belonged to the predecessor of the plaintiffs Late Mohan Chandra Das. Mohan Chandra Das died leaving behind five sons and one daughter as his legal heirs. The aforesaid land measuring 8.80 Are was held in ejmali by the legal heirs of Late Mohan Chandra Das. However, Paresh Chandra Das, one of the sons of Late Mohan Chandra Das had been allotted an area of land measuring 2.60 Are and subsequently the said Paresh Chandra Das had been in possession of the said plot of land in respect of which a separate patta had also been issued in his favour. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the daughter Smti. Kanchan Bala Das had relinquished her claim over the ancestral property. Therefore, the remaining area of land measuring 6.20 Are was required to be divided equally amongst the four brothers, viz., the plaintiff Nos.1, 2, Gajen Chandra Das and Deven Chandra Das i.e. amongst the legal heirs of Mohan Chandra Das except Paresh Chandra Das. The claim of the plaintiffs is that although the said ancestral property had not been partitioned amongst the legal heirs yet purportedly acting on the basis of a deed of family settlement dated 08.05.2005 the defendant No.1, Smti. Gitanjali Patgiri, daughter of Gajen Chandra Das had transferred land measuring 2.63 Are in favour of the defendant No.2, Sandip Agarwalla by means of registered deed of sale dated 21.03.2007.

4. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement thereby denying the claim made by the plaintiffs. By the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2002 the trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/applicants on the grounds and reasons mentioned therein. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2002 passed by the trial Court, the applicants as appellants had preferred Title Appeal No.19/2002 which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court by the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2013. Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.19/2012 the applicants as appellants have preferred RSA No.136/2014 before this Court which was admitted to hearing by this Court on 02.05.2014 by framing the following two substantial questions of law :-

“i) Whether Ext.D3, being an unregistered deed of family settlement, would have conferred title to the defendant No.1?

ii) Whether the learned Court below committed error in construing Ext.2 (registered sale deed No.3735/2007 dated 21.03.2007) ?”

5. I have heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicants and also heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

6. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that since the area of land measuring 6.20 Are was an ejmali land held by the legal heirs of Late Mohan Chandra Das, hence in the absence of proper partition