Patna High Court – Orders
Raju Prasad Jaiswal vs Ashok Prasad on 3 August, 2026
Author: Khatim Reza
Bench: Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.136 of 2024
======================================================
1. Raju Prasad Jaiswal, Son of Late Ram Mohan Jaiswal, Resident of Mohalla
Khas Bazar Haveli Kharagpur P.S Haveli Khadagpur, District Munger,
present r/o Psanauli Maharajganj Old Market, P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj,
District - Siwan.
2. Ranvijay Jaiswal, Son of Late Ram Mohan Jaiswal, Resident of Mohalla
Khas Bazar Haveli Kharagpur P.S Haveli Khadagpur, District Munger,
present r/o Psanauli Maharajganj Old Market, P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj,
District - Siwan.
3. Pinky Jaiswal, D/o Gauri Shankar Prasad Wife of Shri Rohit Kumar Jaiswal,
Resident of village Pasnauli, Maharajganj, Purani Bazar, P.O. and P.S.
Maharajganj, District Siwan, at present r/o 341/4 Maya Bazar, behind old
post office, Hati Mai Marg, Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Ashok Prasad, S/o Late Uma ShankarPrasad
2. Bali Prasad, S/o Late Uma ShankarPrasad
3. Krishna Prasad, Son of Late Uma ShankarPrasad
4. Ajay Prasad, Son of Late Uma ShankarPrasad
5. Most Sunita Prasad, W/o Late Rajesh Prasad
6. Pari Jayaswal, minor daughter of Late Rajesh Prasad through mother Most.
Sunita Prasad guardian
7. Suhani Jayaswal, Minor daughter of Late Rajesh Prasad through mother
Most. Sunita Prasad guardian.
8. Sona Jaiswal, D/o Late Uma ShankarPrasad, Wife of Shri Mahesh Prasad,
resident c/o Arvind Jaiswal, Shivaji Nagar, Champa Sari, Gali number 7 near
hotel Crossover P.S. and P.O. Siliguri, District Darjeeling, West Bengal Pin
number 734003.
9. Rekha Jayaswal, d/o Late Uma Shankar Prasad Wife of Shri Rajan Jaiswal,
r/o 12/18-5-4 Colony teliyabag district Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
10. Usha Jaiswal, d/o late Uma ShankarPrasad wife of Shri Santosh Bhagat,
resident of Hospital road Pratapganj P.O. and P.S. Pratapganj district Supaul,
at present resident of village Chunabhatti (Rashan dukan) P.S. Thindhariya,
district Darjling, West Champaran and parental r/o Psanauli old Bajar, P.O.
and P.S. Maharajganj, District - Siwan.
11. Gauri Shankar Prasad Son of Late Keshwar Prasad, Resident of village
Pasnauli, Maharajganj purani Bajar P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj District -
Siwan.
12. Sail Devi, Wife of Shri Gauri Shankar Prasad, Resident of village Pasnauli,
Maharajganj purani Bajar P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj District - Siwan.
13. Brijkishor Prasad, S/o Gauri Shankar Prasad, Resident of village Pasnauli,
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
2/21
Maharajganj purani Bajar P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj District - Siwan.
14. Professor Nandkishor Prasad, S/o Gauri Shankar Prasad, Resident of village
Pasnauli, Maharajganj purani Bajar P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj District -
Siwan.
15. Rajkishor Prasad, S/o Gauri Shankar Prasad, Resident of village Pasnauli,
Maharajganj purani Bajar P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj District - Siwan.
16. Shyam Kishor, S/o Gauri Shankar Prasad, Resident of village Pasnauli,
Maharajganj purani Bajar P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj District - Siwan.
17. Uttam Kishor S/o Gauri Shankar Prasad, Resident of village Pasnauli,
Maharajganj purani Bajar P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj District - Siwan.
18. Gyanlata Jaiswal daughter of Shri Gauri Shankar Prasad Wife of Shri Sanjiv
Kumar Jayaswal, Resident of village Pasnauli, Maharajganj purani Bajar
P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj District - Siwan.
19. Priyanka Jayaswal @ Beauty daughter of Shri Gauri Shankar Prasad, wife of
Shri Rahul Bhaskar, Resident of village Pasnauli, Maharajganj purani Bajar
P.O. and P.S. Maharajganj District - Siwan.
20. Khushbu Jaiswal, daughter of Gauri Shankar Prasad Wife of Vikas Kumar
Jayaswal, Resident of village Pasnauli, Maharajganj purani Bajar P.O. and
P.S. Maharajganj District - Siwan.
21. Rajiv Nayan Jaiswal, Son of Late Ram Mohan Jaiswal resident of Haveli
Khas Bajar Haveli Khadagpur district Munger at present resident of Pasnauli
purani Bajar Maharajganj P.S. Maharajganj District Siwan, at present
address house number 878 Jivan Colony gali number 37 police Station
Mujhesar Post Office Ballabhgarh district Faridabad.
22. Rajeshwar Jaiswal @ Ishu Son of Late Ram Mohan Jaiswal, resident of
Haveli Khas Bajar Haveli Khadagpur district Munger at present resident of
Pasnauli purani Bajar Maharajganj P.S. Maharajganj District Siwan, at
present address house number 878 Jivan Colony gali number 37 police
Station Mujhesar Post Office Ballabhgarh district Faridabad.
23. Kiran Kumari, wife of professor Nand Kishor Prasad, resident of Village
Pasnauli, Maharajganj Purani Bajar post office and Police Station
Maharajganj District Siwan.
24. Sadhana Gupta, Wife of Raj Kishor Prasad, resident of Village Pasnauli,
Maharajganj Purani Bajar post office and Police Station Maharajganj
District Siwan.
25. Mamta Singh, Wife of Shri Dhirendra Kumar Singh @ Krishna Singh,
resident village Swan Vigrah, P.S. and P.O. Daraunda, District Siwan, district
- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Kant, Adv.
Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Karnika, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Raj, Adv.
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
3/21
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Md. Arsam, Adv.
Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Sristi Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. J.S. Arora, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Parth Gaurav, Adv.
Ms. Supriya Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Prakriti Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV ORDER
16 03-08-2026
Heard Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned
counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi,
learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Parth Gaurav, learned
counsel for respondent no. 25 and Mr. J.S. Arora, learned
senior counsel assisted by Mr. Himanshu Ranjan, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 11 to 21, 23 and 24.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024 passed by
the learned Sub-Judge-XII, Siwan in Title Suit No. 652 of
2023 whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the
injunction petition filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. The
plaintiffs/appellants filed Title Suit bearing Title Suit No.
652 of 2023 for partition. The plaintiffs have filed suit for
carving out their share out of the suit property detailed at
the foot of the plaint. The suit property is a residential house
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
4/21
as well as commercial place of the plaintiffs and defendants
except defendant no. 25; the residential house including the
commercial business are joint, some of the shops are under
tenancy of tenants, who are paying the rent jointly to the
plaintiffs and defendant 1st set to 3rd set. It is further pleaded
that plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 had no sister and their mother had
kept plaintiff no. 3 as daughter and she was brought up,
married, and the mother of plaintiffs gave her 2 katha
property at the time of her marriage. Further the plaintiffs
have stated that two sale deeds were executed by defendant
nos. 1 to 4 and 8 to 10 to a stranger i.e. defendant no. 25 on
25.07.2022 and 31.01.2023 with respect to 5 katha 9 dhurs
11 dhurki land. No information was given by the defendant
nos. 1 to 4 and 8 to 10 to the plaintiffs before the sale of the
land. Had the information be given, then certainly the
plaintiffs would have purchased but now, a stranger has
purchased the land, hence, the plaintiffs have right to
repurchase the land. The plaintiffs are the preferential heirs
to purchase the share of any coparcener or partners to the
joint business as provided under Section 22 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, as such, the balance of convenience
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
5/21
lies in favour of the plaintiffs against defendant no. 25 and
others.
3. On service of summons, the defendants
appeared in the suit and filed their written statement.
Defendant nos. 1 to 4 and 8 to 10 have filed joint written
statement and stating therein that Keshav Prasad had only
two sons, Uma Shankar Prasad and Gauri Shankar Prasad.
Partition Suit No. 02 of 1965 was filed in Chhapra Civil
Court for partition between Keshav Prasad and Ganesh
Prasad and that very partition suit was compromised and
lands were allotted to Keshav Prasad. It is further pleaded
that the sons and the daughters of Uma Shankar Prasad
partitioned their properties and thereafter they have sold the
properties to defendant no. 25.
4. A separate written statement was filed by
defendant no. 25. It is pleaded that Rukmuni Devi was
married to Ram Mohan Jaiswal and plaintiff nos. 1 and 2
are sons of Rukmuni Devi. There is no jointness in the
family after partition of the properties. Defendant no. 25 has
purchased the land but the properties are not surrounded by
boundary wall. There is partition and properties are used for
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
6/21
commercial purposes; shops are running there and the deed
of gift executed by Rukmuni to plaintiff no. 3 is forged and
fabricated one. Further, the case of the defendant no. 25 is
that after death of Keshav Prasad, his sons were separated
mutually and properties were partitioned. Uma Shankar
Prasad got 5 katha 9 dhurs and 11 dhurki land in disputed
plot along with structures and after death of Uma Shankar
Prasad, his sons and daughter got the property separated.
The properties alongwith structures were partitioned and
thereafter, they have executed the sale deed and possession
was given to defendant no. 25 after execution of the sale
deed and after purchase, the defendant has given the shops
on rent.
5. It is further contended that defendant nos. 11 to
20, 23 and 24 have also filed separate written statement and
have admitted that Rukmuni Devi is daughter of Keshav
Prasad but she had relinquished her share in favour of his
brothers, as such, her heirs are not entitled to get share in
the property.
6. The plaintiffs had filed injunction petition under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 under Section 94 and 151 of the Civil
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
7/21
Procedure Code and reiterated their claims. The suit
property is a residential house as well as commercial place
of the plaintiffs and defendants except defendant no. 25.
The residential house including the commercial business are
joint, some of the shops and other properties are under
tenancy of the tenants, who are paying rent jointly to the
plaintiffs and defendant 1st set to defendant 3rd set. The
plaintiffs are entitled to purchase the land which was sold to
defendant no. 25 under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956. It is further contended that there is no loss to the
defendants, if prayer for injunction is allowed. If the
injunction petition is rejected, the same will cause serious
loss to the plaintiffs. It is settled principle of law that the
court is also duty bound to exercise discretionary power in
protecting the properties under dispute.
7. Defendant no. 25 filed her show cause to the
injunction petition and stated that the defendants have stated
that the plaintiffs have no right in the suit property. The suit
land was sold to defendant no. 25 and there was no unity of
title and possession over the suit land, as such, the
injunction is not maintainable. It is submitted that a separate
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
8/21
injunction petition was filed on behalf of defendant nos. 11,
23 and 24 and they have stated that injunction should be
granted against the defendants because joint family property
has been sold by them and the stranger is powerful and by
use of muscle power, she wants to take possession of the
property. It is further submitted that during pendency of the
suit, a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner was
appointed to report about the physical feature of the suit
property. The Pleader Commissioner went to the suit
property and submitted his report in the Court in which he
has found the joint status of the property. The
Commissioner has mentioned the fact regarding the house
and shops and the main entrance gate also. Defendant no.
25 purchased the land in suit from defendant nos. 1 to 4 and
from defendant nos. 8 to 10.
8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 9 also
appeared and opposed the claim of the plaintiffs and stated
that one Keshav Prasad was having two sons; Uma Shankar
Prasad and Gauri Shankar Prasad and respondent 1 st set are
the successor of Uma Shankar Prasad, whereas, respondent
2nd set i.e. respondent nos. 11 to 24 are the successor of
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
9/21
Gauri Shankar Prasad. Plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 are claiming to
be successor of Keshav Prasad, on the ground that Keshav
Prasad had one daughter, namely, Rukmuni Devi, who filed
Title Suit No. 652 of 2023 seeking partition of the joint
family property. It is further submitted that partition took
place in between Gauri Shankar Prasad and Uma Shankar
Prasad and their respective successors. Defendant no. 9
executed a registered sale deed on 25.07.2022 in favour of
respondent no. 25 with regard to partitioned suit land which
was allotted to her. It is apparent from the injunction
petition that no prima facie case lies in favour of the
plaintiffs/appellants. The plaintiffs have not challenged the
two sale deeds having been executed in favour of defendant
no. 25 and have not been not declared void by any
competent court. The balance of convenience also lies in
favour of respondent no. 25 since a portion of land is in
occupation of her. In the event of non-grant of injunction,
the plaintiffs are not going to suffer any serious irreparable
loss.
9. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court
rejected the injunction petition vide order dated 06.02.2024.
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
10/21
The learned court below has held that the present suit has
been filed for partition and from perusal of genealogical
table, it is clear that the heirs of Uma Shankar Prasad has
full right to sell the land. It is also held that all the parties
are separate in possession. From recital of the sale deed
executed in favour of defendant no. 25, it is clear that the
property in suit was partitioned through Bakhudha Batwara.
The plaintiffs have no prima facie case, no balance of
convenience lies in his favour. It is further held that no
question of irreparable loss arises.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants
has submitted that order of the learned court below is a
mechanical order without application of judicial mind. It is
further submitted that it was the duty of the court to
preserve the suit property by grant of injunction order so
that status quo is maintained and multiplicity of litigation is
avoided. Reliance in this regard has been placed in case of
Dharamnath Ojha Vs. Raghunath Ojha reported in (2001)
2 PLJR 268. It is admitted fact that defendant no. 25 is a
stranger to the joint family. The learned Trial Court has
failed to consider that the Commissioner report and map
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
11/21
shows that there is one gate for entrance in the suit
premises. Hence, there is presumption of jointness and if a
third person is allowed to enter then it will be interference
in the privacy of the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court has
given finding in the impugned order that defendant no. 25 is
purchaser and she is facing problem in taking possession
over the suit property, whereas, defendant no. 25 has stated
that she is in possession then the court should have passed
the order to maintain the status quo over the property. The
court further without any documents on record has held
that ‘Bakhudha Batwara’ (partition) has taken place
between the parties and the learned Trial Court has held that
sons of Uma Shankar Prasad has right to sell the land in suit
which is contrary to provision of law. The purchaser of joint
family property (defendant no. 25) wants to take possession
of the property by use of force and by illegal acts, for which
F.I.R. was instituted. It is further submitted that there is
settled law that no co-sharer has any right to sell the
specific portion of the residential house to any stranger. The
suit is pending for final adjudication and on the basis of
pleadings, the Trial Court has framed issues with regard to
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
12/21
partition of the suit property.
11. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Kedia Vs. Nirmal
Kumar Kedia and others reported in (2023) SCC Online
Pat 6650. Reliance has also been placed in the case of
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden reported
in AIR 1990 SC 867, in which it has been held that “The
relief of injunctions are granted generally to preserve or
restore the status quo of the least non-contested status
which preceded the pending controversy until the final
hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the
undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the
restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the
parties complaining.”
12. Further reliance has been placed by the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants in the case of
Sidheshwar Mukherjee vs. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain
Singh reported in AIR 1953 SC 487, wherein, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that “a purchaser of a coparcener
undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled
to possession of what he had purchased. He has a right only
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
13/21
to sue for partition for property and ask for allotment of his
share in the suit property.”
13. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants
further relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Dalpat Kumar and Anr vs. Prahlad Singh and
Ors reported in AIR 1993 SC 276. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid case has held that “The court in
exercise of power of granting ad interim injunction has to
preserve the subject matter of the suit by status quo for the
time being. The prima facie case is not to be confused with
prima facie title, which has to be established on evidence at
the trial. Only prima facie case is substantial question
raised, bonafide, which needs investigation and a decision
on merits. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that
there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury,
but means only that the injury must be only a material one,
mainly that one cannot be adequately compensated by way
of damages. The balance of convenience must be in favour
of granting injunction. The court while granting or refusing
to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion
to find out the amount of substantial mischief or injury
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
14/21
which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction
is refused and compare it with that it is likely to be caused
to the other side if the injunction is granted.”
14. Further, learned counsel for the
plaintiffs/appellants submits that on the basis of sale deed
executed by defendants/vendors to a stranger (defendant no.
25) with respect to the suit land, the defendant/respondent
no. 25 is trying to take possession of the suit property
forcefully which admittedly belongs to common ancestor of
the plaintiffs and defendants/vendors. This fact is supported
by the police report of the proceeding under Section 144
Cr.P.C. and F.I.R. lodged by the plaintiffs from which it
becomes clear that defendant no. 25 forcefully wants to take
possession of the land, therefore, it is the duty of the court
to protect the possession of the plaintiffs.
15. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for
defendant/respondent no. 25 submitted that defendant no.
25 is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration before
filing of the suit. The defendants/vendors sold the land
which was allotted to him in ‘Bakhudha Batwara’ (amicable
partition) after the death of Keshav Prasad, father of Uma
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
15/21
Shankar Prasad and Gauri Shankar Prasad i.e., half and half
between the two sons of Keshav Prasad and the land, in
question, was allotted to Uma Shankar Prasad. Respondent
no. 25 purchased only southern half out of southern half
falling to the share of Uma Shankar Prasad after the death
of Uma Shankar Prasad. Another heirs have also sold the
remaining share of Uma Shankar Prasad. The sale deeds
clearly shows that different shops were in the exclusive
ownership of the vendors of defendant no. 25 which have
been sold to her. The property purchased by
respondent/defendant no. 25 is neither of the plaintiffs nor
other defendants have got any right, title or interest. The
purchased property falls to the share of father of their
vendor namely Uma Shankar Prasad by a mutual partition
between him and Gauri Shankar Prasad (ancestor of the
plaintiffs) after death of their father Keshav Prasad. The
subject matter of the sale deeds are shops, godowns as well
as open land. Out of shops purchased by this respondent,
two shops were in dilapidating condition and its
reconstruction was necessary, therefore, on 29.02.2024, the
husband of this respondent no. 25 almost demolished the
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
16/21
said structure. When defendant no. 23 Kiran Devi, wife of
defendant no. 14, approached the police and got the
demolition stopped, then the plaintiffs/appellants moved
before this Court for out of turn hearing and the appeal was
heard and an order was passed on 29.02.2024 calling for
report from D.G.P., Bihar by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court. Pursuant to the said order, the Superintendent of
Police, Saran at Chapra and D.I.G., Saran Range went
alongwith the local police and got demolition stopped and
deputed some policemen for guarding. It is further
submitted that the demolition was made in absolute
ignorance of injunction order passed by this Court on
27.02.2024. After demolition had taken place, defendant
nos. 14, 15, 23 and 24 had no right to make construction of
wall over it by using force. The action of the construction of
wall and roof over the land and shop purchased by this
respondent after ad interim injunction order dated
27.02.2024 amounts to violation of interim order. There is
neither balance of convenience in favour of the
plaintiffs/appellants nor they have specified as to how
balance of convenience lies in their favour and no question
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
17/21
of irreparable injury is occurring to the plaintiffs. The
defendants/vendors have absolute right over the property
which they have transferred to this respondent/defendant
no. 25 and they do not dispute the correctness of the
documents or the contents. Therefore, the plaintiffs and
other defendants have got no right, title or interest with
regard to the property allotted to Uma Shankar Prasad.
Further, Reliance has been placed in the case of
Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs. Maruti Corporation &
Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2882, wherein, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that “it is well established that
while passing an interim order of injunction under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court
is required to consider the prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable injury.” If the plaintiffs fail to
satisfy any of the three grounds, the court cannot pass
interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. It is
contended that it would be abundantly clear that none of the
ground for grant of injunction has been satisfied by the
appellants and the Trial Court has rightly refused to grant
injunction in favour of the appellants.
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
18/21
16. Having considered the rival submissions of the
parties and materials available on record, it appears that the
plaintiffs/appellants have filed partition suit for carving out
of their share out of the suit property. The suit property is
dwelling house alongwith commercial structure as well as
open space and two sale deeds were executed by the
vendors/defendants to respondent/defendant no. 25 on
25.07.2022 and 31.01.2023. It is admitted fact that
respondent no. 25 is a stranger to the family of the plaintiffs
and defendants and they have also claimed for right to
repurchase the land which was sold to respondent/defendant
no. 25. It is prayed that the plaintiffs are the preferential
heirs to repurchase the share of any coparcener or partner to
the joint business as provided under Section 22 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. However, the learned Trial Court
refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiffs holding
that Bakhudha Batwara (amicable partition) had taken place
between Late two brothers, namely, Uma Shankar Prasad
and Gauri Shankar Prasad and further held that the heirs of
Uma Shankar Prasad have full right to execute the sale deed
and also all the parties are separate in possession. It shows
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
19/21
that the learned Trial Court without conducting the trial has
decided the question of previous partition between the
parties and separate possession of co-sharers at the stage of
refusing temporary injunction. It is also admitted that there
is no documentary evidence to prove that the joint family
property was partitioned by metes and bounds at the time of
passing of the impugned order either by the decree of a
court in partition suit or by the settlement among co-sharers.
This issue has to be decided at the trial. The learned Trial
Court has committed legal infirmity by conclusively
deciding a core substantive issue (previous partition) at an
interlocutory (temporary injunction) stage before a full trial.
It is well settled that undivided share of a coparcener can be
a subject matter of sale but possession cannot be handed
over to the vendee unless the property is partitioned by
metes and bounds either by the decree of court in partition
suit or by settlement among the co-sharers. It is apparent
from the record that respondent/defendant no. 25 is not in
possession of the land, in question, which was purchased
through two sale deeds which has been claimed by the
plaintiffs for repurchase as their preferential right under
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
20/21
Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. All these
issues has to be decided during the trial.
17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, as discussed above, it is clear that the suit filed
by the appellants is pending in trial court and issues raised
by the parties are yet to be decided. The discretion exercised
by the Trial Court in refusing to entertain the appellants’
prayer for temporary injunction is vitiated by an apparent
error as discussed above.
18. Therefore, this Court is of the view that both
the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the suit
property. At the same time, respondent/defendant no. 25 is
restrained from taking possession over the suit property
purchased by her. It is made clear that the subject matter of
the suit shall not be altered by way of any construction,
addition, repair or demolition till disposal of the suit by any
of the parties.
19. In the result, the impugned order dated
06.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Siwan in Title Suit No. 652 of 2023 is
hereby set aside.
Patna High Court MA No.136 of 2024(16) dt.03-08-2026
21/21
20. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Appeal is
allowed.
21. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite
the trial and conclude the same, preferably, within a period
of one year from the date of receipt/production of the copy
of this order.
22. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-
U
