Dismissed

Md. Mansoor Alam and Ors. v. Inderdeo Prasad and Ors.

Patna HC13 Feb 2019MA/1038/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a title suit regarding disputed land and a deed-related inheritance chain, the lower court denied interim injunction due to lack of prima facie case as facts and genealogical tables were contested by defendants. This appeal dismissed the plea for interference, holding no material for interim relief existed and disposed of a separate I.A. similarly.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing ad interim injunction stands affirmed.

Md. Mansoor Alam and Ors. Vs Inderdeo Prasad and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.1038 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Md. Mansoor Alam

¶4

Md. Kalimuddin,

¶5

Md. Khurshid Alam,

¶6

Anjum Pravez, All are sons of Late Md. Jahoor Alam @ Ecchu Mia,

¶7

Halima Bano,

¶8

Taslima Bano, Both daughters of Late Jahoor Alam @ Ecchu Mia,

¶9

Savina Pravin, W/o Arshad Alam,

¶10

Ubaish Ershad,

¶11

Ashad Pravez,

¶12

Naushim Saba, Appellant no. 8, 9, 10 are minor daughters of Late Arshad Alam under the guardianship of their mother Sabina Pravin, All are residents of Giriyak, P.S.- Giriyak, District- Nalanda, at present Mohalla- Indira Chauk, Main Road Rajganpur, P.S.- Rajganpur, District - Sundergarh, Orissa.

¶13

... ... Appellant/s

¶14

Versus

¶15

Inderdeo Prasad, Son of Late Mangal Yadav,

¶16

Vijay Kumar, Son of Ragho Yadav,

¶17

Sujit Kumar, Son of Prasadi Sao, All are residents of Giriyak, P.S.- Giriyak, District- Nalanda.

¶18

Md. Raja Karim,

¶19

Md. Gulam Bari,

¶20

Md. Shakil Raja, All are sons of Late Md. Ahmad Raja, Residents of MauzaGiriyak, P.O. P.S.- Giriyak, District- Nalanda.

¶21

Mrs. Mehru Nisha, W/o Late Wase, Resident of Mohalla- Mogla Khar Town, P.S.- Nawada Sadar, District- Nawada.

¶22

Shamsha Begum, W/o Minhaz Alam, R/o Mohalla - Ansar Nagar Town, P.S.Bundelkhand, District- Nawada.

¶23

Md. Iqbal, Son of Md. Yahiya, R/o Kasaw Tola Gaya Town, P.S.- Gaya, District - Gaya.

¶24

Md. Aftab, Son of Late Yahiya, Resident of Khelari, P.S.- Khelari, DistrictRanchi.

¶25

Asharphul Nisha, W/o Late Md. Enam, R/o Amana, P.S.- Rajauli, DistrictNawada.

¶26

Kamruddin Nisha, W/o Md. Shahid, R/o Village- Ansar Nagar Town, P.S.Bundelkhand, District- Nalanda.

¶27

... ... Respondent/s

¶28

======================================================

¶29

Appearance :

¶30

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶31

======================================================

¶32

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-02-2019

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶34

The plaintiffs-appellants brought Title Suit No.

¶35

Patna High Court MA No.1038 of 2017 dt.13-02-2019 2/3

¶36

197 of 2014 for declaring the two sale deeds said to be executed by defendant-respondent no. 4 to 6 in favour of defendantrespondent no. 1 to 3 in respect of land claimed by the plaintiffsappellants. The plaintiffs-appellants further prayed for declaration of their title and possession on the lands which were subject matter of the suit i.e. which were transferred by the referred two sale deeds. The plaintiffs-appellants filed the petition for ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from affecting any kind of alienation and also to restrain from disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.

¶37

The learned court below examined, in details, the factual position and recorded that the plaintiffs have got no prima facie case for the reason that genealogical table appended with the plaint has been denied by the defendants. The defendants claimed the property as their own. The question of possession is also disputed as the purchaser-defendants are claiming possession over the suit land after purchase of the same. According to court below all these disputed facts are to be adjudicated at the time of trial and no prima facie case is made out.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that defendant no. 4 to 6 are going to sell other lands of the plaintiffs

¶39

Patna High Court MA No.1038 of 2017 dt.13-02-2019 3/3

¶40

also for which injunction was sought for.

¶41

No interim injunction can be granted in respect of the property which are not subject matter of the suit. After perusal of the copy of the plaint and written statement produced, it is evident that most of the facts pleaded by the plaintiff have been denied by the defendants.

¶42

Hence, in my view also, there was no material for prima facie making out a case of ad interim injunction in favour of the appellants. Therefore, impugned order requires no interference. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

¶43

I.A. No. 01 of 2019 for ad interim injunction by this Court also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶44

(Birendra Kumar, J)

¶45

Kundan/Rajan

¶46

AFR/NAFR	N.A.
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	15.02.2019
Transmission Date	15.02.2019

Md. Mansoor Alam and Ors. v. Inderdeo Prasad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mansoor Alam and Ors. v. Inderdeo Prasad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

State of Bihar Vs M/S Hardeo Singh

Aatish Bairoliya Vs Vijay Kumar Bairoliya and Ors.

Nitesh Kumar Goswami Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Yogendra Roy @ Jogendra Ray Vs The State Of Bihar

Ritesh Kumar Mehta @ Chhotan Kumar Vs The Central Bureau of Investigation