An interim mandatory injunction requires clear evidence of altered status quo and ownership; mere possession does not suffice to grant injunction against true owners.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by learned District Judge-III, Dhanbad in Civil Misc. Appeal No.30 of 2020 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to affirm the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-III, in Misc. Civil Application No.138 of 2020 (arising out of Original Suit No.180 of 2013 and dismissed the Civil Misc. Appeal No.30 of 2020.

3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are plaintiffs in the Original Suit No.180 of 2013 and the suit was instituted with regard to 2.36 acres, C.S. Plot No.540, Khata No.06, Mauza- Tetulmari, Thana- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad along with other lands originally belongs to and was recorded in the C.S. records in the names of Nathu Mahto and others. He further submits that Nathu Mahto was the Grandfather of the defendant-respondent No.1- Narayan Mahto and had half share in the property and the lands were held and possessed jointly and Nathu Mahto died leaving behind his son Ram Chandra Mahto and widow Sugia Mahtain. He further submits that Ram Chandra Mahto and Sugia Mahtain felt inconvenient to possess the land with the co-sharers and as such they filed Title (Partition) Suit 18/1954 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge-1^st, Dhanbad for partition and to make separate allotment chart which was decreed on 29.04.1955 and half share was declared in their favour. He submits that later on, Sugia Mahtain died and her interest devolved upon her son Ram Chandra Mahto and later on, Ram Chandra Mahto also died leaving behind him his widow Mundri Mahtain and son Narayan Mahto- Defendant- respondent No.1 who filed an Execution Case No.83 of 1957 to effectuate the decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.18 of 1954 and the possession was delivered to them upon the land which was allotted to them in the final decree including the land-in-question.

4. He further submits that Mundri Mahtain was exercising all acts of natural guardian of his minor son Narayan Mahato and sold 12.50 acres of land including the suit land of herself and her minor son through Sale Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 to one Bamdeo Singh (father of plaintiffs) and put him in peaceful possession and after coming in peaceful possession, he got mutated the land in the Government Revenue Records and paid rent under Thoka No.216 of Mouza Tetulmari. Bamdeo Singh died leaving behind his three sons namely, Yogendra Singh, Birendra Singh and Gajendra Singh (who are the original plaintiffs) who inherited the interest. During the pendency of the suit, Birendra Singh died leaving behind his two sons and they have been substituted in his place. Thereafter, the original plaintiffs sold portions of 2.34 acres land to various persons, out of which the defendant-respondent No.1 (who is the petitioner) purchased 64 decimals vide Sale Deed No.2218 dated 25.02.1986 and received its peaceful possession. He submits that the defendant-respondent No.1 accepted the rights, title, interest of 64 decimals, but later on in year 2013, the defendant-respondent No.1 started to claim the land too described in Schedule-B (5 decimals, a portion of Schedule-A land within C.S. Plot No.540, Khata No.06) on the contention that the said Sale Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 is a void deed. He submits that in view of this background, a petition under Or