MUSHAMMA SAROD PATNAHA Vs. HARISHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19-9-2000 in Civil Suit No. 46-A/2000 of IInd Additional District Judge, Satna whereby application of the plaintiffs/appellants marked as I. A. No. 3 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction was rejected.

(2.) UNDISPUTABLY, Ayodhya Prasad was the original holder of the suit-property bearing House No. 12-Kha, Ward No. 40, Chawk Bazar, Satna and House No. 108, Subhash Park, Satna. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are also co-sharers and have l/4th share in the suit-property and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the same. The respondent No. 1 is the son of Ayodhya Prasad, while the other respondents 2 to 6 are the LRs of the remaining sons of Ayodhya Prasad.

(3.) AN application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit-property was also filed by the plaintiffs appellants. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned order. The learned Trial Court has observed therein that the material placed on record indicates that Ramesh Prasad, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of remaining appellants had taken his share in partition on 22-5-1968 and separate from the joint family. Accordingly, prima facie, it appears that the appellants had no right, title or interest in the joint family property belonging to the respondents. It was also held that it has not been shown that the appellants are in exclusive possession of any part of the disputed property. Accordingly, it was held that the appellants' application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC for temporary injunction cannot succeed.