IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 18 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 2584 of 2018 BRIJENDRA SHEKHAR CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS Versus KU. SHIVANI CHAURASIY AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri S.M. Shukla - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri L.N. Tripathi - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred taking exception to the impugned order dated 02/05/2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Rewa, in Civil Suit No.27/A/2014, whereby the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been rejected.

2. For the sake of brevity the parties shall be referred by their rank in the trial court.

3. In sum and substance, the plaintiffs (appellants herein) have preferred a civil suit bearing No.27/A/2014 seeking declaration of their 1/4th share and common possession along with defendants Nos.3 to 24 over the ancestral agricultural vacant land bearing Khasra No.865, area 0.65 acres, situated at Rewa. The history of the suit suggests that one Ramcharan (since deceased) was the head of the family and had two sons Ganeshram and Vasudev. Vasudev was succeeded by Laxmishankar and thereafter by Balandu. All these forefathers of the plaintiffs have died, and the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Shri Balandu. All other family members have been arrayed as defendants in the suit.

4. The sole basis for filing the suit is that the plaintiffs are claming

1/4th share on the premises that the defendants nos.3 to 24 have already filed a compromise application in favor of the plaintiffs, which was not accepted by the learned trial Court. The cause of action for filing the suit arose when the defendants have sold few portions of disputed land, which, according to the plaintiffs, is undivided till date. After filing of the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The said application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 02/05/2018. Rejection of this application has given rise to the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial court has committed illegality in passing the impugned order. It is further contended by the counsel that in the written statements filed by the defendants, there is a clear admission regarding the disputed property being ancestral property. It is further argued that no formal partition has taken place amongst the family members till date, and therefore, all the family members have equal rights, title and interest in the ancestral property. It is also contended that a compromise has already entered into with the consent of other defendants. The question of equity, therefore, arises in the present case.

A prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 have opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

7. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the suit was filed in the year 2014 and is pending since then. While deciding the application for temporary injuction, the Court below has framed three basic issues regarding prima-facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience. The plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Shashi Shekhar Chaturvedi whereas the defendants riled upon the affidavits of Krishkumar Chourasiya and Shivani Chourasiya.

8. The history of the record revels that between 1973-74 and 2007-

2012, the names of Sudarshan Prasad and Chandrashakar Prasad were duly mutated. Nowhere the name of the father of the plaintiff Laxmishankar has been mutated. The plaintiffs have also not relied upon any documentary evidence to show physical possession over the land in question. Since the name of the plaintiffs or their father are not recorded in the revenue record and physical possession is also not proved, the plaintiff fails to establish a prime-facie case. No other point is required to be decide