ORDER

This petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of order dated 10.12.2022 (Annexure-P/8) passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.256/2022 [Durga Prasad Vs. Tejilal and others] by the Court of District Judge (Fourth), Jabalpur, M.P. granting injunction in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff by modifying the order passed by the Court of Eighth Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jabalpur on 27.09.2022 (Annexure-P/7) whereby an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been rejected by the trial Court.

2.The exposure of facts in brief are that respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and other respondents stating therein that being the owner of land situates at Mouja Lamheti, Settlement No.644, P.C. No.36, Tahsil and District Jabalpur bearing Khasra No.47/1 with area admeasuring 2.7300 hectares, he is in possession of the said land.

2.1 It was averred in the plaint that the suit property is an ancestral property of respondent No.1/plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, earlier it was Khasra No.17 and after settlement, khasra numbers got renumbered and thereafter it became Khasra No.47 of which the area was 11.440 hectares. It was further stated in the plaint that after the death of plaintiff’s parents, there was a partition amongst the brothers in which respondent No.1/plaintiff had acquired the land admeasuring 2.7300 hectares.

According to the plaintiff, so far as defendant No.1 (respondent No.2) is concerned, his land is in Khasra No.82, but he got his name mutated in respect of land bearing Khasra No.47/1. Accordingly, it was alleged in the plaint that defendant No.1 (respondent No.2) had sold the property bearing Khasra No.47/1 area admeasuing 2.7300 hectares to the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 by a registered sale-deed which according to respondent No.1/plaintiff is illegal and as such, in the suit filed by the plaintiff, he had asked that declaring him a bhumiswami of land situates at Khasra No.47/1 area admeasuring 2.7300 hectares, the sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 be declared null and void. Along with the plaint, respondent No.1/plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC claiming temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and other respondents from interfering with his possession over the suit property.

2.2The petitioner and other respondents had filed reply to the said application stating therein that as per the provision of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, a suit for declaration is not maintainable if possession is not claimed. That apart, they had denied the other averments made in the plaint as also in the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. It was claimed by them that the land in question originally belongs to respondent No.2/defendant No.1 which got illegally mutated in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. According to the petitioner and respondent No.4, they acquired the property by virtue of registered sale-deed and on the basis of that, their names got mutated in the revenue records. The petitioner had also filed several documents relating to demarcation which got done by the revenue authorities showing that the petitioner is in possession of the property whereas the plaintiff failed to produce any documentary proof that the land in question is his ancestral property and he is still in possession of the same and as such, it was claimed by the petitioner and other respondents that neither any prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff nor the balance of convenience lies in his favour but on the contrary, the petitioner and respondent No.4 shall suffer irreparable loss in case any injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff.

2.3The trial Court af