IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 12 of 2026 NARBADESHWAR PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS Versus POONAM CHANDRA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Agrawal -Senior Advocate with Shri Akshay Singh -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Brien D Silva- Senior Advocate with Shri Ishan Soni - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER The present petition has been filed arising out of the order dated

13.10.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned lower appellate Court whereby the learned lower appellate Court has vacated the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court vide order dated 05.02.2025. The present petition has been filed by the plaintiffs who are aggrieved by setting aside of the order of grant of temporary injunction which was in their favour.

2. The present petitioners had filed a suit before the trial court for declaration and permanent injunction basically against the defendants No.1 to 11 on the assertion that the father of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 had purchased the suit land by an unregistered sale deed dated 08-02-1992 from one Manohar Lal Ghanshyam and thereafter the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land either themselves or through their relatives, who are defendants No. 12 to 14 and are sons or successors of sons of one Shri Govind Narayan Singh. It is further alleged in the plaint that after purchasing the land by way of unregistered sale deed dated 08-02-1992, mutation was carried out by the revenue authority in the year 1998 and even in the course of mutation proceedings, it was recorded by the revenue authority that the petitioners are in possession and therefore they have acquired title by the unregistered sale deed in the suit land measuring 11.57 acres and prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants No. 1 to 11. They impleaded defendants No. 12 to 14 only formally. It was pleaded in the plaint that the defendants No. 12 to 14 are in actual possession of the land and are cultivating the land on behalf of the plaintiffs with their consent.

3. The defendants No.1 to 11, who are the actual contesting defendants, filed a written statement stating therein that the unregistered sale deed has been executed on the strength of an unregistered power of attorney dated 10-12-1991 which was allegedly executed in favour of Govind Narayan Singh in New Delhi while the land was situated in District Satna, M.P. It was pleaded that Govind Narayan Singh on the strength of such alleged power of attorney which is forged and fraudulent document, is stated to have sold the land by way of two different sale deeds, one in favour of Vikram Singh being his close relative and another in favour of Shiv Bahadur Singh, who is also one of his close relatives. The fraud and forgery was to such an extent that the other sale deed in favour of Vikram Singh is also unregistered and is stated to be executed on 03.07.1996 on stamp paper of Rs.4/- which was much after death of Manohar Lal Ghanshyam who died on 5-4-1992 at Bhiwani, Haryana. It is pleaded in the written statement that the entire matter is nothing but fraud and forgery at the hands of sons of Govind Narayan Singh and his close relatives. It was further pleaded that on the basis of unregistered sale deed no title gets transferred and even the sale deed was not executed by the owner himself. Even the alleged unregistered sale deed is forged and even if it is not forged, then it is unregistered and not executed by the vendor himself, but by the power of attorney holder. The power of attorney is also unregistered and the sale is ostensibly made by power of attorney holder Govind Narayan Singh who was a powerful person, in favour of his own close relatives. Therefore, on all these assertions the suit has been defended and the application for temporary injunction was also defended.

4. The Trial Court proceeded to decide the application for temporary injunction and granted temporary injunction o