A registered sale deed showing joint ownership establishes a prima facie case for partition. Mutation entries do not determine title, and temporary injunctions are appropriate to prevent alienation of suit property to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

NAFR

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMADate: 2026.04.21 11:24:54 +0530

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

Judgment on Board

20/04/2026

1. The appellants/defendants have preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned 9th District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2023 (Lovely Singh Vs. Mayank Chhabra & Ors.), whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC.

2. The plaintiff/respondent No.3 instituted a civil suit seeking partition of suit land pleading, inter alia, that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are real brothers and defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. It is averred that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 jointly purchased the agricultural land situated at Village Munrethi, Patwari Halka No.11/12, R.N.M. Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, bearing Khasra No.151/1, area 0.690 hectare, by registered sale deed dated 27.05.2008 for a consideration of Rs.5,25,000/-, and thereby acquired title and possession over the same (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). Since the suit land was jointly purchased, the plaintiff claims half share therein. Thereafter, the names of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were duly mutated in the revenue records. It is further pleaded that for proper management of the suit land and payment of land revenue, defendant No.1 obtained from the plaintiff a relinquishment deed/consent letter on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.50/-, representing that the same was merely a formal document and, being unregistered, would have no legal effect. Thereafter, both parties signed the mutation register of Village Munrethi on 25.09.2012, which was certified by the Tahsildar on 14.12.2012. The original relinquishment deed/consent letter is stated to be in possession of defendant No.1. It is also pleaded that when defendant No.1 started showing the suit land to prospective purchasers, the plaintiff obtained a certified copy of the mutation order dated 14.12.2012 and challenged the same before the Tahsil Court, but the said application was dismissed by the Additional Tahsildar by order dated 15.01.2021 and the appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thereafter, defendant No.1 executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the entire suit land, thereby making her ostensible owner thereof. It is further pleaded that during pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 published an advertisement in the daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 25.01.2023 for sale of the suit land, whereupon the plaintiff issued a rebuttal publication on 27.01.2023. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC contending that he has a strong prima facie case and is likely to succeed in the suit; however, if during pendency of the suit the land is alienated to a third party, it would result in multiplicity of proceedings and cause irreparable loss to him. On these grounds, prayer has been made for grant of temporary injunction.

3. Per contra, the defendant filed the written statement along with the reply to the application under Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 stating therein that the suit land was purchased by defendant No.1 from his own income and, out of goodwill, the name of his younge