Nirmal Kumar Samuel vs Atul Kumar Shukla - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9609

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Order 43 Rule 1(r), Section 151 - Grant of temporary injunction - Three essential ingredients: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury - Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed; appeal against rejection of temporary injunction. (Paras 1, 13, 23, 26)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 92 - Oral evidence cannot be led to contradict the terms of a registered sale deed. (Para 9)

(C) Injunction - Principles - Court must exercise sound judicial discretion, consider conduct of parties, probable injuries, and whether plaintiff could be adequately compensated - Burden on plaintiff to establish prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience - Existence of prima facie case alone insufficient; all three conditions must be satisfied - Injunction to be issued if subject matter should be maintained in status quo pending suit. (Paras 24, 25, 26)

(D) Possession - Protection of settled possession - Even a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law; such possession deserves protection by court. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of a sale deed in respect of Nazul land. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was self-acquired of deceased plaintiff No.1 who orally partitioned it amongst his children (plaintiffs 2, 3 and defendant No.2). Defendant No.2 allegedly executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 fraudulently taking advantage of plaintiff No.1's advanced age. The trial court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, holding that none of the essential ingredients for grant of injunction were established. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred this appeal.

Findings of Court:
From the stamp duty paid (Rs.4,06,250/-) and guideline rate (Rs.64,000/- per sq.meter), it was inferred that the sale deed only covered 1500 sq. ft. and not the entire suit property. The plaintiffs are in possession of their respective portions. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs; non-grant of injunction would cause irreparable injury. The trial court's order rejecting injunction was set aside; status quo directed to be maintained till final disposal of the suit.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury; and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the material on record prima facie indicated that the sale deed did not relate to the entire suit property; the plaintiffs are in possession of their respective portions; consequently, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs, and if interim injunction is not granted, they shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money. Result : Appeal allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against rejection of temporary injunction in suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed, and permanent injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 12 , 13 )

2. Appellants claimed fraudulent sale deed and possession; respondent asserted lawful purchase and payment of consideration. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 14 )

3. Appeal allowed — Impugned order set aside — Temporary injunction granted — Parties to maintain status quo. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 )

4. What are the essential requirements for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC?

Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favour, and likelihood of irreparable injury if injunction is refused. (Para 20 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )

5. Under what circumstances can a person in settled possession be protected by temporary injunction?

A person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law and such possession deserves protection by the court. (Para 21 , 22 )

6. Can deficit stamp duty and guideline value indicate that a sale deed was not intended to cover the entire property?

Yes, where stamp duty paid is based on a lower value than the guideline rate for the entire property, it indicates the transaction covered only a part of the property. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 25 )

1. The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit (A) No. 114/2025 (Nirmal Kumar Samuel & Ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Shukla & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants have instituted a civil suit against the defendants/respondents seeking declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale deed in respect of Nazul land bearing Sheet No. 05, Plot No. 34/6, admeasuring 6932 sq. ft., situated at Mouza Jarhabhatha, Nazul R.N.M. Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, within the limits of Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Ward No. 12 (Mother Teresa Nagar), near Rajiv Gandhi Chowk towards the New Tifra Bridge and abutting the main road (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’). According to the plaint, the suit property is the self-acquired property of plaintiff No.1 (now dead), who was nonagenarian and was suffering from serious visual impairment.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that deceased plaintiff No.1 had orally partitioned the suit property amongst his children plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 and defendant No.2, pursuant to which each of them came into possession of their respective portions. As per the map annexed with the plaint (Schedule “A”), the entire property is shown within the boundaries marked as अ.ब.स.द. It is further pleaded that on the west side of the property adjoining the main road four shops have been constructed, while towards the east side there exists a residential house and open land in the middle portion. According to the plaintiffs, under the said oral arrangement, plaintiff No.2 was allotted the portion marked अ ब. ई. फ consisting of a residential house and some open land admeasuring about 3215 sq. ft. Plaintiff No.3 was allotted the portion marked य.फ.र.द consisting of two constructed shops along with open land admeasuring about 1650 sq. ft., situated towards the southern side adjoining a lane. The portion marked ई. य. स. र consisting of shops and open land admeasuring about 1600 sq. ft. was allotted to defendant No.2. It is pleaded that although the parties are in possession of their respective portions in accordance with the oral partition, the revenue records continue to stand in the name of deceased plaintiff No.1 as the partition was not formally recorded. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that plaintiff No.1 had executed a gift deed dated 23.01.2018 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of his portion, however the same could not be registered on that date and subsequently the registration could not be completed due to the illness of plaintiff No.1 and owing to outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic situation. It is also stated that the portions of plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.2 are situated on the western side abutting the main road and are commercial in nature having four shops, whereas the portion allotted to plaintiff No.2 is situated towards the rear side and opens towards a narrow lane, therefore a comparatively larger area was allotted to plaintiff No.2 to balance the valuation of the respective portions. The plaintiffs further averred that, defendant No.2, without their knowledge, executed a sale deed dated 18.06.2021 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the land admeasuring 1500 sq. ft. (approx.) along with two shops situated on the main road. It is alleged that taking advantage of the advanced age of plaintiff No.1 and the fact that his name continued to remain in the revenue records, the defendants obtained his signatures during the Covid period and got the sale deed registered by hatching a conspiracy and fraud showing incorrect particulars of the land. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 had no authority to sell the disputed property a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Nirmal Kumar Samuel – Appellant
Versus
Atul Kumar Shukla – Respondent
MA No. 155 of 2025

The court held that for granting a temporary injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience; all three conditions must be satisfied.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What are the essential requirements for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC?

5. Under what circumstances can a person in settled possession be protected by temporary injunction?

6. Can deficit stamp duty and guideline value indicate that a sale deed was not intended to cover the entire property?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURBibhu Datta Guru, JNirmal Kumar Samuel – AppellantVersusAtul Kumar Shukla – RespondentMA No. 155 of 2025

The court held that for granting a temporary injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience; all three conditions must be satisfied.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What are the essential requirements for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC?

5. Under what circumstances can a person in settled possession be protected by temporary injunction?

6. Can deficit stamp duty and guideline value indicate that a sale deed was not intended to cover the entire property?

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Nirmal Kumar Samuel – Appellant
Versus
Atul Kumar Shukla – Respondent
MA No. 155 of 2025