Dismissed¶¶36

Bhola Ram Sahu v. Leela Ram Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2026MA/4/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: temporary injunction; Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC; Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC; Order 41 Rule 5 stay; maintainability of successive injunction applications; injunction between co-owners; 1/5th share each; alleged sale agreement dated 15.10.2025; alienation of ancestral agricultural land; Khasra Nos. 404, 406, 419, Village Parewadih, Dhamtari; Civil Suit No. 53-A/2016; Civil Appeal No. 41/2025; counter-claim partly allowed; dismissal at motion stage; Bhola Ram Sahu v. Leela Ram Sahu and others; State of Chhattisgarh (formal respondent); Bibhu Datta Guru, J.; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Considering that the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are co-owners of the suit property to the extent of 1/5th share each, the first appellate Court rightly found no ground to grant temporary injunction, and this Court endorses that view.

Bhola Ram Sahu Vs Leela Ram Sahu — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:1109

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MA No. 4 of 2026

¶6

Bhola Ram Sahu S/o Late Budhram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Parewadih, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.09 10:53:38 +0530

¶10

1. Leela Ram Sahu S/o Late Budhram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Parewadih, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶11

2. Smt. Dakeshwari D/o Late Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Parewadih, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶12

3. Smt. Leelawati W/o Mohan Sahu Aged About 55 Years D/o Late Budhram Sahu, R/o Village Ranwakurra, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶13

4. Smt. Dhanbati Bai W/o Late Hori Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years D/o Budhram Sahu, R/o Sankra, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶14

5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For State/ : Mr. Ritesh Giri, P.L. Respondent No. 5

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

08/01/2026

Heard.

By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC the appellant is challenging the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Dhamtari in Civil Appeal No. 41/2025 whereby and where-under the learned first appellate Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff/ appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC

¶23

The plaintiff/ appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 53-A/2016 before the Court of Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhamtari, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of ancestral agricultural land situated at Village Parewadih, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, bearing Khasra Nos. 404, 406 and 419, admeasuring a total area of 1.02 hectares. The case of the appellant was that the suit land is ancestral property of Late Budhram Sahu and that the appellant has been in actual physical possession of the same for several decades.

¶24

The defendants contested the suit by filing written statements denying the exclusive possession of the appellant. Respondents/ Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 also filed a counter-claim seeking declaration of their respective shares in the suit property. Upon consideration, the learned Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 20.08.2025, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant; however, the counter-claim was partly allowed and it was declared that the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are joint owners to the extent of 1/5th share each in the suit land.

¶25

¶26

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred a First Appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Dhamtari, and also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of operation of the judgment and decree, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2025. Subsequently, the appellant filed another application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC contending that, taking advantage of absence of injunction, the respondents were attempting to alienate the suit land and had executed a sale agreement dated 15.10.2025, thereby creating an imminent threat to the appellant’s possession and rendering the pending appeal infructuous.

¶27

The respondents opposed the said application by filing their replies, contending inter alia that the appellant had earlier sought temporary injunction during pendency of the suit as well as stay of operation of the decree in appeal, both of which were dismissed on merits, and therefore the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 was not maintainable.

¶28

The learned Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC by the impugned order dated 2.12.2025, primarily on the ground that in view of dismissal of earlier applications for injunction and stay, the subsequent application was not maintainable. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings.

¶29

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the law with regard to Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC in its true perspective. He would submit that the trial court rejected the application primarily on the ground that in view of dismissal of earlier applications for injunction and stay, the subsequent application was not maintainable. He further submits that prima facie case lies in his favour and further the balance of convenience also lies in its favour and since the defendants are trying to sell the disputed land, the first appellate Court ought to have granted the temporary injection.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the the parties and perused the documents.

¶32

It is an admitted fact that the appellant and the defendants No. 1 to 4 are the co-owner of the disputed land and the appellant filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and sought for temporary injunction on the ground that taking advantage of absence of injunction, the respondents were attempting to alienate the suit land and had executed a sale agreement dated 15.10.2025.

¶33

After considering all aspects of the matter in its true perspective and upon appreciation of the material available on record, the learned first appellate Court rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the impugned order. While doing so, the learned Court recorded that the defendants had specifically denied

¶34

¶35

execution of any sale agreement and asserted that the signature appearing on the alleged agreement was forged. It was further stated that the respondents intended to retain the ancestral property as part of their inheritance and had no intention to alienate the same. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are co-owners of the suit property to the extent of 1/5th share each, the learned Court found no ground to grant temporary injunction, which in the view of the court is correct. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court.

¶36

Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Jyoti

Bhola Ram Sahu v. Leela Ram Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Ram Sahu v. Leela Ram Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanshyam Vs Geeta Bai

Smt. Ratna Vaishnav Vs Smt. Shakuntala Bai

Smt. Subasho Vs Bali Prasad Yadav

Baldau Prasad Mishra Vs Hadtal Prasad Mishra

Devkumar Sahu Vs Shri Khelawan Yadav

Faguwa Ram Vs Roopchand