A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for an injunction; without it, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss are irrelevant.

The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge-Ist, Bhagalpur in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 622 of 2016.

The petitioner has further sought quashing of the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 622 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the petition dated 10.01.2017 filed under Order 39 Rule 1(a)(b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter as ‘the Code’) with further prayer to allow the injunction petition dated 10.01.2017 filed by the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are are the descendants of one Prasadi Sah who filed Title Suit No. 622 of 2016 seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the original owner of the suit land as described in Schedule-A of the plaint having valid right, title and interest over it and further declaring the sale deed dated 20.03.1990 executed by one Bishun Sah as null and void and not operating and not binding upon the plaintiff and also for recovery of possession of the suit land. The suit land is said to be of Khata No. 285, Khesra No. 1596(Kh), area 0.0021 ¼ hectare, Mouza – Nagar Nigam, Bhagalpur, Survey Ward No. 27 (942), Anchal – Jagdishpur, District – Bhagalpur having boundary North – Bishun Sah, South – Sakhichan Sah, East – Bonsi Road and West – Rajendra Sah. The case of the plaintiff is that on 30.05.1984 , the khatiyani holders divided their share and all the parties came in physical possession over their respective share on the basis of partition and Jamabandi was created on the basis of said partition deed. The parties started paying rent and got their rent receipts. On the basis of Batwaranama dated 30.05.1984 khatiyani holder namely, late Bishun Sah sold his share to defendant 1st party/respondent no. 1 through sale deed No. 2265 dated 15.02.1989, 20.03.1990 having total area 0.0036 ¼ hectare. Further case of the plaintiff is that Bablu Sah was the common ancestor having sons namely Chulahi Sah and Maulu Sah. Chulahi Sah had four sons and three daughters whereas Bholu (Maulu) Sah had two sons. Sons of Chulhai Sah wee Sakhichand Sah, Mahendra Sah, Rajendra Sah and Hari Sah whereas sons of Maulu Sah are Prasadi Sah and Bishun Sah.

Partition took place on 30.05.1984 between sons of Chulhai Sah and Maulu Sah. In the partition, the disputed plot bearing Khata No. 282, Khesra No. 1596(Kh), area 0.0042 ½ hectare was allotted in the share of the original plaintiff and his brother Bishun Sah who got 0.0021 ¼ hectare each in disputed plot.

However, Bishun Sah old 0.0036 ¼ hectare with defendant Pooran Sah and thus, he sold more than 0.0021 ¼ hectare, from the disputed plot whereas he had no title or possession over the said land. As Bishun Sah was used to gambling and was an addict and the defendant Pooran took advantage of this fact got the land transferred in his name, all the parties of the Batwaranama filed Title Suit No. 67 of 1989 which was dismissed for non-appearance of the parties and thereafter, on the basis of sale deed, Pooran Sah got the mutation done in the year, 2009 in his name without notice to the plaintiff and plaintiff filed Mutation Case Case No. 17/2010-11 before the D.C.L.R., Bhagalpur who allowed the application and set aside the order of the Circle Offficer, Jagdishpur. Against that order Pooran Sah went into appeal before the Collector and the appeal was allowed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur which was pending at the time of filing of the petition. Meanwhile, defendant Pooran Sah forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff and the plaintiff was compelled to file the pre