An injunction can be granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to protect property rights during litigation, even with the existence of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, provided legal criteria are met.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Mr. Rohitashya Roy and Mr. Vibhor Mayank, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the O.P.Nos.1 to 3 as well as O.P.Nos.4 to 7, respectively.

2. This appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rules (i) (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for setting aside the order dated 26.03.2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of the CPC registered as M.C.A No.15 of 2024 filed by the appellant/plaintiff arising out of Original Suit No.58 of 2024 whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the prayer of temporary injunction over the sale of the property in dispute at the hands of the defendants who are Opposite party nos.1 to 7. The prayer is further made to grant temporary injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.

3. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Original Suit No.58 of 2024 has been instituted by the appellant/plaintiff and others who are plaintiff/proforma respondents in the suit praying therein for declaration of right, title and interest in their favour in connection with the land appearing in Schedule-A. He submits that in Schedule-A the plot nos. and area has been described and the total area of the plots are 23.685 acres. He further submits that Fakira Sarangi was the ancestor of defendant nos.1 to 3 and Baijnath Sarangi was the ancestor of plaintiff/ appellant who were uterine brothers and they were having equal share in the Schedule land under Khata No.3, 27, 28, 16 and 89 of Village-Masmano. He then submits that in R.S. Record of Rights both the aforesaid Fakira Sarangi and Baijnath Sarangi amicably partitioned the lands under Khata No.3, 27, 28, 16 and 89 of Village-Masmano between themselves by entering into a Memorandum of Family Arrangement on 16.11.1942. According to him, the land being in khas cultivating possession of the aforesaid Baijnath Sarangi was allowed to be retained by him on payment of rent and accordingly aforesaid Baijnath Sarangi was recognized as a raiyat by the State and fair rent with respect of the aforesaid 23.68 ‰ acres of land under Khata No.3, 16 and 28 of Village Masmano described in Schedule-A was assessed under the relevant provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 vide Rent Fixation Case No.450 R 8/1957-58. In the meantime, the said Baijnath Sarangi went to Sambalpur (Odisha) for earning livelihood and started living there with his family members. However, he used to visit his native village and used to look after his property. He enjoyed peaceful possession of the aforesaid property. He submits that the appellant/ plaintiffs are the successors of Baijnath Sarangi and the defendant nos.1 to 3 who are O.P.Nos.1 to 3 are the legal heirs/successors of another recorded tenant, that is, Fakira Sarangi. Fakira Sarangi died leaving behind his only son namely, Govind Sarangi, who too died leaving behind his only son Kapur Sarangi and he also died leaving behind his three sons namely, Basant Sarangi, Chunku Sarangi and Biranchi Sarangi who are the defendant nos.1 to 4. He submits that on 18.12.2023, when the appellants were carrying on measurement work upon plot nos. 735, 744, 752/990, 744/996 and 752 of Village Masmano in order to construct boundary wall for its safety, the defendants along with some antisocial elements started disturbance upon the same which has been reported by the appellants to the concerned