Case Background
The dispute concerns agricultural land in village Chak Hussain, popularly known as Khusrupur, under Khusrupur Police Station, District Patna. The plaintiffs, now appellants, claim this land as their ancestral and purchased property described in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of their plaint.
They filed Title Suit No. 232 of 2013 for declaration of their right, title and possession over the suit land. They also sought a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from disturbing their peaceful possession and from selling or otherwise alienating the suit land.
According to the plaintiffs, their ancestor was Sanichar Mahto, who jointly possessed the property with his brother Narayan Mahto. This joint possession was reflected in the record of rights of the last cadastral survey. They say Schedule 1 land is ancestral, while Schedule 2 land was purchased by them.
The plaintiffs state that Narayan Mahto married Genda Kuer, daughter of Tilak Mahto. She allegedly died issueless, and by survivorship Sanichar Mahto became entitled to the entire joint family property and remained in possession of all of it with undisputed title.
Later, a land ceiling proceeding was started against Saudagar Prasad, ancestor of the plaintiffs, in respect of the Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 properties standing in the names of Genda Kuer and Saudagar Prasad in Register 2. By order dated 25.07.1975, it was held that both sets of lands were owned and possessed by Saudagar Prasad.
Saudagar Prasad died in 1993 leaving behind his two sons, Surendra Prasad and Upendra Prasad, who became plaintiffs and claim to have inherited the Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 lands. They then filed Mutation Case No. 1173 of 2012 before the Circle Officer, Khusrupur, Patna.
The defendants objected to the mutation. After hearing both sides, the Circle Officer allowed the mutation in favour of the plaintiffs and issued rent receipts under Jamabandi No. 247.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The defendants set up a different family line. They say Narayan Mahto died leaving behind a daughter, Genda Kuer, and that his wife was Rupiya Devi. According to them, Genda Kuer married Tilak Mahto and had two sons, Jagdeep Mahto and Prayag Mahto.
Jagdeep allegedly died unmarried and without children. Prayag married Janki Devi @ Kudri and they had one son, Chamru Mahto. Chamru married Tetri Devi (defendant no. 1). Their son is Dinesh Mahto (defendant no. 2), and their daughters are Geeta Devi and Sita Devi.
The defendants allege that in the land ceiling case, Saudagar Prasad obtained orders behind the back of Genda Kuer, without impleading her as a party. According to them, that land ceiling order was collusive and not binding on the heirs of Genda Kuer.
On this basis, they say Saudagar Prasad, the plaintiffs’ father, had only half share in the suit lands, and the remaining half belongs to the legal heirs of Genda Kuer, i.e., the defendants. They also allege that the Circle Officer wrongly mutated the plaintiffs’ names.
The defendants further state that Narayan Mahto and Sanichar Mahto were brothers and that in a partition of the suit properties, each got half share. The half share of Narayan went to him and, on his death, to his daughter Genda Kuer. She came into possession and her name was recorded in Register 2 under Jamabandi No. 76/Ka, where she paid rent.
During pendency of the title suit, the defendants filed an application for temporary injunction on 03.08.2017 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They sought to restrain the plaintiffs from filling earth over the suit land, from raising any construction, and from creating any encumbrance or alienation of the suit property till disposal of the suit.
The Sub-Judge-IV, Patna City, Patna, allowed this application by order dated 14.06.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 727 of 2018 before the Patna High Court seeking to set aside that injunction order.
Before the High Court, the plaintiffs argued that even if the defendants’ own version is assumed to be true, their claim does not legally stand. According to the plaintiffs, by the defendants’ own showing, after the death of Genda Kuer, who was in joint possession with Sanichar Mahto, she could not have inherited the joint property as widow or daughter of Narayan Mahto and therefore could not have succeeded to it.
The plaintiffs also pointed out an important factual aspect. They stated that a letter of intent had been issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation in favour of Abhishek Kumar for opening a retail outlet. Abhishek Kumar had deposited Rs. 2,30,000/- for this purpose.
The plaintiffs stated that the land selected for the petrol pump was part of the suit land, specifically plot nos. 116 and 40. They had obtained permission from the State Government for conversion of the land use from agricultural to commercial use on payment of Rs. 2,69,703/- as conversion fee. The oil company had accepted this proposal for setting up the retail outlet on these plots.
The plaintiffs contended that if they were not allowed to establish the petrol pump, they would suffer irreparable loss. They also argued that the balance of convenience was in their favour, because even on the defendants’ own case, the defendants at best claimed only half share in the joint family property.
In order to deal with the injunction question, the High Court reproduced Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. These provisions allow a court to grant temporary injunction when property in dispute is at risk of being wasted, damaged, alienated, or when there is threat of dispossession or other injury in relation to property in dispute.
From these provisions, the High Court observed that generally applications for grant of temporary injunction are moved by plaintiffs. However, it noted that under certain conditions, as provided in sub-clause (i), an injunction application can also be entertained from either party, including a defendant.
The specific reasoning on whether those conditions were satisfied is not elaborated in the text, but the Court accepted that a defendant’s application is maintainable only within those specified conditions.
The High Court then balanced the competing interests. On one side were the defendants, who had secured an injunction from the trial court to preserve the status quo over the entire suit property until the title suit was decided. On the other side were the plaintiffs, who had already taken concrete steps to establish a petrol pump, including obtaining a letter of intent, paying a significant amount to Bharat Petroleum Corporation, and paying conversion fee to the State Government.
The Court considered the plaintiffs’ argument about irreparable loss and balance of convenience. It appears to have accepted that stopping the petrol pump project, which had already progressed to an advanced stage with official permissions and financial deposits, would cause serious hardship to the plaintiffs.
At the same time, the Court was cautious not to prejudge the title dispute in the main suit. Even if the defendants’ claim of half share were ultimately accepted, that would not necessarily prevent the petrol pump from being established on the particular plots, especially when the dispute about exact shares and boundaries would be decided later in the title suit.
Taking a middle path, the Patna High Court partly modified the trial court’s injunction order. It held that the land on which the petrol pump is being established by the plaintiffs—namely, suit plot nos. 116 and 40—would be exempted from the operation of the impugned injunction order.
The plaintiffs were thus permitted to construct the petrol pump on those specific plots. For the rest of the suit property, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court and allowed the injunction to continue till the disposal of the suit.
In conclusion, the miscellaneous appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of freeing the petrol pump land (plot nos. 116 and 40) from the injunction. The wider rights and shares in the suit property remain to be decided in the pending title suit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for landowners and family members involved in property disputes where development projects are planned on disputed land.
The Patna High Court showed that even when there is a serious title dispute, courts may allow essential or time-sensitive projects to go ahead on part of the land, if stopping them would cause irreparable loss and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the party seeking to proceed.
At the same time, the judgment makes clear that such partial relief does not decide the final ownership. The main title suit will still determine who ultimately owns what share in the property.
For people facing similar problems, it shows that injunctions can be modified or relaxed in specific situations, especially when there are letters of intent, government permissions, and substantial financial commitments already in place.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Could the defendants obtain and retain a blanket injunction stopping the plaintiffs from using the entire suit land, including plots already earmarked for a petrol pump project?
Answer: The Patna High Court held that the defendants’ injunction could not extend to the specific plots (116 and 40) where the petrol pump was being established. It exempted those plots from the injunction but kept the injunction intact for the remaining suit property. -
Issue: How should the court balance irreparable loss and balance of convenience while dealing with temporary injunctions in land disputes?
Answer: The Court accepted that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss if the petrol pump project was stopped, especially after deposits, permissions and a letter of intent. Considering that even on the defendants’ case they claimed only half share, the balance of convenience favoured permitting construction on the specific plots. -
Issue: Is an injunction application by defendants maintainable under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC?
Answer: The Court noted that generally injunction petitions are filed by plaintiffs, but under sub-clause (i) they may be entertained on behalf of either party, including defendants, subject to the conditions mentioned there.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment text does not mention or rely on any other decided cases.
Case Details
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 727 of 2018; arising out of T.S. No. 232 of 2013
Case Title: Surendra Prasad & Ors v. Most. Tetari Devi & Anr
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar
Citation: 2019(2) PLJR 1000
Advocates: For the Appellants – Mr. Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocate; Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents – Mr. R.C. Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Shashi Chandra Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh Tarun, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Miscellaneous appeal against an order granting temporary injunction in a title suit.
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 22.04.2019
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MiM3MjcjMjAxOCMxI04=-soQzo0ecp2s=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
