The main legal point established is the application of the principles of granting interlocutory injunction, emphasizing the need to protect the plaintiff against irreparable injury and injustice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Judgment dated 30.06.2023 (Annexure 9) passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2022 by the learned District Judge-III, Latehar and also the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 02 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No. 01 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Latehar whereby the learned courts below have rejected the application of petitioners/ plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for the temporary injunction.

Factual Background of the Case

2. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have filed the Original Suit No. 01 of 2022 claiming following reliefs:-

(a) To declare the Gift Deed No. 1671 dated 03.12.1998 made by the present respondent no. 4 Krishnadeo Pandey in favour of respondent no. 2 Sarita Devi as illegal, null, void ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiffs and further that the said gift deed may be cancelled.

(b) To declare the sale deed no. 364 dt. 08.02.2021 executed by the respondent no.2 Sarita Devi in favour of respondent no.1 Gita Real States Ltd. Through its Proprietor Vivek Kumar as illegal, null, void ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiffs and further that the said sale deed may be cancelled.

(c) To declare the joint right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs with the other coparceners over the suit land and further to confirm their possession.

(d) For issuance of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs alongwith other coparceners.

(e) Any other reliefs for which the plaintiffs shall get entitled including Court fee and the cost of litigation.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the coparceners with their father Krishna Deo Pandey, who is the respondent/defendant no.4 in their ancestral property. The father of plaintiffs has executed a gift deed No. 1671 on 03.12.1998 in favour of Sarita Devi, (second wife of executant) the defendant no. 2 without consent of plaintiffs or existence of any legal necessity out of his share in the ancestral property. The gift deed has not been accepted by the defendant no. 2 as there is no recital in the gift deed. It is alleged that lands appertaining to Khata no. 47, plot no. 1448 corresponding to New Khata No. 300, plot no. 2525 measuring 3/4 decimals, a house and a well has been constructed by the plaintiffs and they are residing and carrying on their business by opening mobile shop and a small hotel. The fact of gift deed came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs on 15.01.2013. The defendant no. 2 Sarita Devi permanently left the village Balumath and settled at Village Kandri in the District Ranchi in the year 2005 and never came into possession over the suit land on strength of alleged null and void gift deed executed in her favour. The said Sarita Devi executed a Sale Deed No. 364 dated 08.02.2021 in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of the suit land and that the defendant no. 1 has been ever since then making constant and concerted efforts to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. The plaintiffs had also filed two Partition Suits bearing no. 25 of 2014 and 61 of 2021 which were, however, subsequently withdrawn by them. It is their case that the defendant no. 4 had appeared in the above suits and pleaded that he had made the above gift deed under threat and coercion. The suit land as mentioned in Schedule-B of the original suit measuring a total area of 43 1/2 decimals was located under Old Khata No. 20 and 47 and old Plot No. 1443, 1448 and 1449 at Mauja Balumath, Tola Kasiyadih, P.S. Balumath, erstwhile District of Palamau, present District Latehar at the time of the gift deed. Later, as per the sale deed no. 364 dated. 08.02.2021 the same is mentioned as 43 1/2 decimals under New Khata No. 300, New Plot No. 2423, 2523 and 2525 at Mauza Balumath, P.S. No. 91, P.S.-Balumath, District-Latehar. It is also the case of plaintiffs that as per the old record of rights th