IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 403 of 2024 ------

1. Sulu Mahato, wife of Late Jhurulal Mahato, resident of Village Gangurda, P.O. & P.S. Kamalpur (Patamda), District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

2. Funu Mahato, wife of Late Dhananjay Mahato, resident of Village Gangurda, P.O. & P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus

1. Mansa Ram Mahato, son of Late Doman Mahto, resident of Village Bangurda, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

2. Deepak Mahato, son of Late Doman Mahato, resident of Village Bangurda, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

3. Dilip Kumar Mahato, son of Late Doman Mahato, resident of Village Bangurda, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

4. Rajesh Kumbhakar, son of Pradeep Kumbhakar, resident of Bandhogora, Kapali, P.S. Chandil, P.O.Patamda, District Seraikella Kharsawan, Jharkhand

5. Om Prakash Kedia, son of Bishwanath Kedia, resident of Village Bandh (Katin), P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

6. Mahesweta Kedia, wife of Om Prakash Kedia, resident of Village Bandh (Katin), P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

7. Abhiram Mahato, son of Khokha Mahato, resident of Village Charak Pathar, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

8. Devendra Nath Mahato, son of Khokha Mahato, resident of Village Charak Pathar, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

9. Sasadhar Mahato, son of Khokha Mahato, resident of Village Charak Pathar, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate For the O.P. No.5 : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. Nos.6&7: Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate Order No.10 / Dated : 14.08.2025 Plaintiffs are before this Court against the orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court by which the petition for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2, have been rejected.

2. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed the Original Suit No.170/2021 to declare the Sale Deed No.7112/6290 dated 11.11.2005 executed by opposite party no.1/defendant no.1- Mansa Ram Mahato in favour of opposite party nos.7, 8 & 9 and Sale Deed No.10178/8109 dated 30.12.2011 executed by opposite party no.2/defendant no.2- Deepak Mahato in favour of opposite party no.4 and Sale Deed No.6792/5589 dated 26.07.2010 executed by opposite party no.3/defendant no.3 in favour of opposite party nos.5 & 6 to be fake, fraudulent and invalid documents.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the vendor of these sale deeds were members of backward caste and transfer had been made in the name of person of general category and therefore, it was hit by Section 46 of the CNT Act. In this view of matter, the sale deeds were fit to be declared void as being in contravention with specific provision of the CNT Act. On this premise, temporary injunction petition was filed by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from doing any more construction on the suit property.

4. It is submitted that prima facie the case is in favour of plaintiffs, balance of convenience is also in their favour. If the nature of property is changed, petitioners/plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs are agnates of vendor and the property is joint family property. Vendor has sold more than his share in the joint family property of which he had no title to transfer to the purchaser. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court and the first appellate Court have held that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed was barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on the order passed by co-ordin