ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the orders dated 1.4.2022 and 18.2.2021 (Annexures-P/17 and P/15 respectively) passed by the Courts below.

2. By the order impugned dated 18.2.2021 (Annexure-P/15), the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners before the trial Court seeking injunction, has been rejected. Thereafter, challenging the said order, an appeal was preferred before the appellate Court and by the order impugned dated 1.4.2022 (Annexure-P/17), the appellate Court has affirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal saying that the plaintiffs failed to prove the required ingredients and also their possession over the land for which injunction is being sought.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioners before this Court, who are the plaintiffs before the trial court, have filed a civil suit in the Court of 7th Civil Judge Class-2, Bhopal against the respondents / defendants, seeking a decree of declaration of title in respect to 6.67 acres of land out of 18.66 acres situated at Prabhat Petrol Pump Square in front of Hotel Silver Inn, Bhopal and for perpetual injunction and for restraining the defendant (State of M.P.) from interfering in their peaceful possession. It has also been stated in the civil suit that the respondents No.1 and 2 are the wife and son of Late Kunjilal, respectively. The petitioners No. 1 to 3 are children of late Dalchand and petitioners No. 4 (a) and 4 (b) are grand-children of late Dalchand. Late Dalchand and Late Kunjilal were real brothers and successors to late Hariram (grand father of petitioners No. 1 to 3). Late Hariram inherited about 27.67 acres of late from his father late Goverdhan. Out of 27.67 acres of land, 18.66 acres of land relates to Khasra No.33-41/1 and 33-41/2, situated at Prabhat Petrol Pump Square and out of 18.66 acres of aforesaid land, the dispute is with regard to 6.67 acres. After the death of Hariram, his sons late Dalchand and late Kunjilal became the owner of the aforesaid property by way of succession. Since, it was the ancestral property without any partition during lifetime of late Hariram, same remained under the joint ownership and possession of both the sons, Kunjilal and Dalchand. The petitioners also filed an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. before the trial Court but the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.2.2021 dismissed the application. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal under the provisions of Order 43 rule 1 read with section 151 of C.P.C., that too was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 1.4.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below have miserably failed to appreciate undisputed fact that the suit land is a part of joint ancestral property without any partition during the lifetime of late Hariram and therefore, father of the plaintiffs / petitioners late Dalchand, so as his legal heirs have birth right over half of the portion thereof. From the order dated 31.12.1991 it is clear that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property. There are other valid and legal documents viz electricity bills in the name of father of petitioners No.1 to 3 and joint agreement made by late Dalchand and late Kunjilal of the year 1975 and 1984 with the Grah Nirman Samiti, Khasra entries which clearly proves the possession of the petitioners. Further contended that the respondents No. 3 and 4 cannot be called as valid and legal owner of the suit property as the very will on the basis of which they are claiming title is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the same is challenged by the respondents No.1 and 2 in the court of law wherein the petitioners have also intervened. The will also appears to be fabricated and concocted because it bears the thumb impression of late Kunjilal whereas the documents mentioned