IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 7 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6018 of 2025 SMT. SUIYABAI Versus JAGDEESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashok Kumar Chourasia - Advocate with Shri M.P.S.Chouhan -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Darshan Soni - G.A. for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.8.2025, annexure P/8 passed by III District Judge Nasrullaganj, District Sehore, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.14/2024, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(R) of the CPC has been dismissed, affirming the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the court of I Civil Judge, Class I, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore, in Civil Suit RCSA No.27/2020, by which the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 3 are the daughter and sons of deceased Anokhilal and as such they are entitled for equal share (one fourth share each) in the property Signature Not Verified of Anokhilal mentioned in the plaint, as it was the self acquired property of Anokhilal. The petitioner being old and illiterate lady and taking benefit of the same, the defendants have mutated their names in the entire suit property and are trying to alienate the same. It is further contended that the trial court as well as the appellate court have erred in not following the three golden principles for granting temporary injunction.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. From perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioner/ plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, injunction, separate partition and possession along with other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants no.1, 4 and 6 to alienate the suit property mentioned in the plaint, on the ground that plaintiff being the daughter of Anokhilal is entitled for one fourth share in the suit property which is the self acquired property of Anokhilal. However, defendants no.1 to 3 being her real brothers and defendants no.4 to 6 being her nephew have illegally got their names mutated in the revenue records and are trying to alienate her share in the suit property.

5. Defendants No.1, 4 and 6 and defendants no.2 and 3 filed their written statement stating that the suit property originally belonged to their grandfather Devaji. Devaji during his lifetime had given the 4.49 acres of land of survey no.55 to defendant no.2 Radheshyam. It is further averred that during lifetime of Devaji, he had given 9 acres of land of survey no.54 to defendant no.1 Jagdish and remaining 10.46 acres land were given to Signature Not Verified defendants no.2 and 3. It was further averred that for obtaining Govt. aid, out of 10.46 acres of land, 6 acres of land were recorded in the name of their father Anokhilal. Defendant no.1 has developed the land and sold the plots to defendants no.7 to 12.

6. The trial court as well as the appellate court after appreciating the material available on record found that except on 6 acres land of survey no.54/1/2, the name of Anokhilal was never recorded in the suit property. However, registered sale-deed of the year 1963 of land bearing survey no.55 area 4.49 acres executed in favour of Devaji in is record and the said land transferred and recorded in favour of defendant no.2 during lifetime of Devaji is also on record. Likewise, both the courts below found that as per revenue record of the year 1983-84, names of Devaji and defendant no.1 Jagdish is recorded against land bearing survey no.54/1 and 54/2 and name of Anokhilal was recorded against 6 acres of land bearing survey no.54/1/2, which he bequeathed to defendants in the year 1998. Thus, the c