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

th

ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 813 of 2026 MANOHAR LAL NAWANI Versus PINKI GAUTAM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Himanshu Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Kesharwani Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the appellate court, thereby setting aside the order of injunction passed by the trial court. The present petition is at the instance of the plaintiff who is aggrieved by the order of the appellate court in setting aside the grant of temporary injunction by the trial court.

2. A suit has been filed by the present petitioner on the assertion that he was sold certain land in August 2023 by the father of the defendant No.1. It is averred in the plaint that the sale deed took place for an area of 0.10 hectare in survey No. 18/1, but now the defendant No. 1 is trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff.

3. The application for temporary injunction was considered by the trial court and it was held by the trial court that since the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has a recital of delivery of possession, therefore, there would be inference of possession of the plaintiff. The said sale deed was executed by father of the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The order of trial court was challenged before the appellate court and the appellate court has set aside the order on the ground that it appears that no land was available in the title of the father of the plaintiff while executing sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff has not been held entitled to any temporary injunction.

3. The counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that the order of the appellate court is only based upon revenue entries and revenue entries do not confer any title, nor are conclusive proof of possession and therefore the order of the appellate court deserves to be set aside and the possession of the present petitioner/ plaintiff deserves to be protected.

4. Upon considering the aforesaid assertions, it is seen that the trial court while granting the injunction has considered in paragraph 13 of order Annexure P/5 that at the time of settlement, in the name of the vendor Kashi Prasad in survey number 18, there was excess area to the tune of 0.11 hectare registered in the name of the vendor. The trial court held that the actual extent to which there was increase in the area can only be adjudicated after evidence but once there is a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, he appears to be in possession of some land because the sale deed contains recital delivery of possession.

5. The appellate court has vacated the said order by holding that once from the orders of revenue authorities and on the basis of the revenue reports it appears that earlier the vendor was having less area of land but the area of land has increased after settlement, therefore the appellate court has reached to a conclusion that in fact no such area which has been sold to the present petitioner plaintiff exists on the spot and therefore vacated the order of temporary injunction.

6. From the aforesaid two orders of the trial court and the appellate court, it is clear that even the trial court considered the possibility that actually there is no area 0.10 hectare available on the spot which has been sold to the petitioner/plaintiff. However only on account of the fact that there is recital delivery of possession in the sale deed the trial court held the petitioner/plaintiff to be entitled to temporary injunction.

7. The defendant in the suit is son of the vendor and the vendor had separately sold some portion of land in same survey number in the year 2012 to his son, and various other sale deeds were executed by the same vendor in the same survey number in favour of various persons. The appellate court has arrived at a finding that prima facie it