The appellate court upheld the issuance of a temporary injunction based on prima facie evidence of ownership and possession, emphasizing the standard for appellate review of discretionary decisions.

Petitioners / Defendants nos. 1 to 7 have preferred present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by impugned order dated 10/03/2021 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 03/2021 by IInd Additional District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, District- Indore, which has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 25/01/2021 passed in Civil Suit no. 48-A/2020 by 5th Civil Judge, Class-I, Ambedkar Nagar, District - Indore.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction stating that the suit land survey no. 13/2 admeasuring area 0.737 Hectare situated at village Nanded, Teh.- Dr. Ambedkar Nagar is recorded in name of plaintiffs. Originally the land Survey no. 13/2 was purchased by Himaatsingh (Husband of plaintiff no. 01 and father of plaintiff no. 02) on 10/04/1985 by registered Sale deed. Himmatsingh died on 19/12/2017. After the death of Himmatsingh, the plaintiffs become owner of suit land Survey No. 13/2. Defendant no. 1 Roopsingh and defendant no. 2 Jeevansingh are real brother of Himmatsingh and other defendants are also family members and relatives. Defendants nos. 1 to 7 are creating dispute and they are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from suit land.

3. During pendency of the civil suit, the plaintiffs/respondents have filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 25/01/2021 dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the plaintiffs before the First Appellate Court, which has reversed the order of the trial Court allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal no. 3/2021 vide order dated 10/03/2021 by issuance of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the same, this Misc. Petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. The Appellate Court has committed an error by interfering and reversing a well reasoned order passed by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court has committed an error while discarding the material evidence available on record. There was no prima-facie case. Balance of convenience and irreparable loss is in favour of the respondent, therefore, they do not deserve for any temporary injunction. In previous suit bearing civil suit no. 55-A/04, vide order dated 07/07/2006, it was held that Roopsingh and Jeevansingh are in possession of suit land.

Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes present petition by submitting that the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and it does not deserve for any interference.

6. Both the parties heard at length and perused the record.

7. So far as prima-facie case is concerned, from perusal of the registered sale deed dated 10/04/1985, it appears that Himmant Singh, who happens to be husband of respondent no. 1/ plaintiff Vidyabai had purchased the suit land bearing Survey no. 13/2 admeasuring 0.737 hectors and thereafter, his name was duly mutated as Bhuswami, but since 1985 till now, the petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid mutation order which has been found in the name of Himmantsingh. Nothing has been mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed that the suit land was purchased in the name of Himmat Singh as a Karta of Hindu Undivided Family..

8. Although learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during lifetime of Himmatsingh, a family settlement has been done between Himmatsingh and his brothers, but the said settlement is hand written document.

Nothing has been mentioned regarding description of the suit land. No mutation proceeding has been done on the basis of the aforesaid family settlement. Apart from the above, name of Himmatisngh is continuously recorded as Bhuswami in respect of the revenue records. His poss