Trial courts must consider potential complexities arising from property alienation when deciding on temporary injunction requests amid ongoing disputes.

ORDER This misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , has been filed by petitioners- plaintiffs therein, taking exception to the order dated 26th of April, 2024 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First District Judge, Datia ( first Appellate Court) in Misc. Civil Appeal No.04 of 2023 and the order dated 7th of January, 2023 passed by Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Datia (in short '' trial Court '') in Civil Suit No.74-A of 2022, whereby the application filed by plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been rejected.

It is the contention of Counsel for petitioners that father of plaintiffs'

No.1 to 4, late Shri Baijnath Prasad and Late Shri Chokhelal, father of defendants- respondents No.1 to 7 are the real brothers and the sisters.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA Plaintiffs have filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the ancestral property in dispute and along with application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC , seeking temporary injunction and the said application was rejected by trial Court and order passed by the trial Court was affirmed by First Appellate Court holding that defendants are shown as they are in possession and if they are in possession being the co- sharers, then no injunction can be granted in favour of plaintiffs, but the anxiety of plaintiffs was that the defendants may be directed not to alienate the suit property and not to create any third party rights. No relief was claimed by the plaintiff regarding possession, therefore, the impugned orders passed by Trial Court and affirmed by first appellate Court are illegal and contrary to law. It is further contended that question of possession can be decided after recording of evidence of both the parties but the factum of alienation can be decided at initial stage, which is not curtailing the rights of any party and if defendants no.1 to 5 alienate suit property, then it will create hardship to plaintiffs leading to multiplicity and complexity in litigation. Both the Courts below did not discuss about the relief as sought for by plaintiffs and rejected the application only on the basis of assumption and presumption. It is further submitted that the only ground seeking temporary injunction was that the defendants be directed not to create any third party rights because partition of suit property had not been taken place and if without partition, transfer of disputed property is done, then it may lead to multiplicity as well as complexity of litigation. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the judgments of Dalpat Kumar and Another vs. Prahlad Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA Singh and Others, (1992) 1 SCC 719, Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass 2004 Legal Eagle (SC) 968, Shri Paccoal Josinho Vaz son of Franciso Vaz and Others vs. Smt. Eugenia Helena Vaz and Others, 1998 (1) All MR 751. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.

On the other hand, placing reliance on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of Parag Aginhotri vs. Mohan Singh Dagar and Another (Crivil Revision No. 2785 of 2029, decided on 1st May, 2019) and the decisions of this Court (Indore Bench) in the case of Harunbai and Others vs. Sugrabai and Others (MP No. 639 of 2018, decided on 7-02-2018) and Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Munni Devi and Another vs. Shri Uttam Singh and Others (RP No. 734 of 2021, decided on 5-08-2022), learned Counsel for respondents No.1 to 7, argued that if alienation of the suit property is not taken place during pendency of suit, the person who is in possession of property should be protected as per provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Properties Act and owner can remove him only by following the legal procedure and the subsequent purchaser is bound to decree. Hence, no interference is warranted and prayed for dismissal of this peti