In property disputes, co-owners retain rights to their share unless proper legal procedures are followed for transfer, which must involve mutual consent or court intervention.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI MISC. PETITION No. 5574 of 2024 SMT. HEMANT AND OTHERS Versus ARVIND AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Veer Kumar Jain - Senior Advocate assisted with Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri Piyush Mathur - Senior Advocate assisted with Shri Madhusudan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents.

Heard on: 09.09.2025 Delivered on: 29.10.2025 ORDER Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved with the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by 11th District Judge, District Indore in MCA/104/2024, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents has been allowed, dismissing the order of the trial Court dated 29.03.2022 granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners against the respondents.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that petitioner no.1 have filed a suit against the respondents regarding a property dispute. The petitioners and the respondents 1 &2 are siblings and the children of the late Jagannath Kanungo. The dispute involves agricultural land with survey numbers Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI

180/2/1, 184/1, 209/1, and 222/1 measuring 1.521 hectares in Kanadia, Indore, which the petitioners and respondents inherited from their father. The petitioners claim that the respondent no.1, her brother, has attempted to illegally sell or transfer the entire property, claiming it is his alone property. It is further alleged that the petitioners have recently become aware that the respondent no.1 has already executed several registered sale deeds therefore, the petitioners sought temporary injunction to prevent the respondent from interfering with the land or transferring it to anyone else. The trial court partly allowed the petitioner's application and granted temporary injunction vide order dated 29.03.2022, against the respondents regarding the disputed land. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the aforesaid order and the appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the trial court's order.

Being aggrieved the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appellate court made a serious error by not properly reviewing the documents and by setting aside the trial Court's order, despite the petitioners having a prima facie case and the balance of convenience being in their favor. It is contended that Jagannath, during his lifetime, divided the property equally among his four legal heirs (the two petitioners and the two respondents). All four have been jointly cultivating the land since then. After the death of Jagannath, Respondent No. 1 used a forged "Will" to illegally transfer the title of the inherited land into his own name in the year 2009. The respondent no.1 colluded with revenue officials and provided incomplete information on the legal heirs to execute the transfer. The transfer Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI was conducted without proper legal procedures, such as issuing a public notification or inviting objections. The petitioners were never served notice of hearing by the Revenue Court and were not given an opportunity to be heard before the title was transferred. The petitioners, who had been farming their land for many years, got the information of sale of the land after being informed by nearby farmers.

4. The petitioners and respondent no. 1 and 2 have equal share in the said property i.e. 1/4-1/4 share, thus respondent no. 1 has 1/4 share in his right therefore respondent no. 1 cannot transfer more than the said 1/4 share of the property, it was necessary to stop him from transferring the rest of the said property except his share. Counsel further submitted that if the respondent No. 1 sells more land other than