PRABHAWATI DEVI Vs. RAJESH PRASAD SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dtd. 10/7/2015 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bettiah in Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2012, affirming the order dtd. 15/5/2012 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-III, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 111 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the prayer of the plaintiffs/petitioners for grant of injunction on the suit land has been rejected.

(2.) The conspectus of the case, as it emerges from the record, is that the petitioners are plaintiffs, who have filed Title Suit No. 111 of 2010 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran seeking declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the property mentioned in Schedule 6 of the plaint and alternative prayer has also been made that if the plaintiffs are dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, a decree for recovery of possession may also be granted in their favour. The plaintiffs also prayed for a declaration that sale deeds dtd. 4/4/2009/6/4/2009 executed by defendant 1st party were illegal, void and nullity. The plaintiffs have also prayed for grant of injunction. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the title suit. The plaintiffs gave a genealogy with their plaint submitting that one Dhorha Sah had two sons namely, Khirodhan Sah and Sitaram Sah. Khirodhan Sah was married to Mantura Kuer and they have three sons namely, Shambhu Sah, Lakhan Sah and Jagan Sah, who are defendant nos. 13, 14 and 15 in the said title suit and husbands of the plaintiffs/petitioners, respectively. Sitaram Sah had married twice and had one son, Jokhan Sah from his first wife and a daughter Sangita Devi, from his second wife. Jokhan Sah had five sons and a daughter, who are defendant nos. 3 to 9 in the title suit and also respondent nos. 3 to 9 in the present petition. Second wife of Sitaram Sah, namely Gena Kuar, is defendant no.10/respondent no. 10 and defendant no. 11/respondent no. 11 is daughter of Sitaram Sah. The wife of Khirodhan Sah is Mantura Kuer who has been made defendant no. 12 in the title suit. After the death of Dhorha Sah, the joint ancestral property of the family was partitioned between Khirodhan Sah and Sitaram Sah as wife of Dhorha Sah predeceased him. The property purchased in the name of wife of Dhorha Sah, namely Shivratni Devi, was also partitioned between two brothers. The dispute is with regard to the property purchased in the name of Shivratni Devi and the said property is having area of 1 bigha 4 dhurs in Plot Nos. 617, 806, 805 and 808 of Holding No. 20. Sitaram Sah got Schedule III property from the purchased land of Shivratni Kuer in the following manner:-

(3.) During pendency of the suit as the defendants started negotiation for sale of the gifted land of the plaintiffs, they filed a petition on 21/1/2011 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') praying to restrain the defendants from alienating/encumbering the suit properties in any manner. The defendants filed rejoinder and contested the claim. The matter was heard and learned Sub Judge rejected the injunction application filed by the plaintiffs vide order dtd. 15/5/2012. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the plaintiffs filed Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2012 which was also dismissed vide order dtd. 10/7/2015. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in the present case.