Case Background
The dispute arises from agricultural land in village Berhna, P.S. Barh, District Patna, involving Survey Plot Nos. 2551 and 2552.
The plaintiffs (later petitioners before the Patna High Court) say that defendant no. 2 originally owned 37 decimals of land: 10 decimals in Plot No. 2552 and 27 decimals out of Plot No. 2551. According to them, defendant no. 2 sold all 37 decimals to plaintiff no. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 05.03.1982.
They claim that, by mistake, the deed mentioned only 27 decimals instead of 37 decimals, though the boundary of the land was correctly written. Plaintiff no. 2 says she was put in possession in 1982 and has remained in peaceful possession over the land along with other land. After purchase, she allegedly amalgamated Plots 2551 and 2552 and planted mango, teak and jackfruit trees.
The plaintiffs further assert that due to a mistake of the deed writer, the suit land was left out in the sale deed of 05.03.1982. They say that in June 2010 they asked defendants of the 2nd set (including defendant no. 2) to correct the deed. The defendants-2nd set then allegedly executed an agreement for sale on 30.06.2010 with regard to the suit land.
Later, on the plaintiffs’ request, defendants-2nd set are said to have corrected the mistake and executed a registered sale deed on 29.01.2015 in favour of plaintiff no. 1, admitting the earlier 1982 sale.
According to the plaintiffs, in the first week of January 2015 they came to know about another registered sale deed dated 13.09.2010. This deed had been executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 (respondent 1st set) regarding the same suit land. The dispute flared up when defendant no. 1 allegedly threatened to cut the trees standing on the suit land.
On 20.01.2015, defendant no. 1 filed an application before the Sarpanch of Gram Kachahri, Berhna, seeking recovery of possession of the suit land from the husband of plaintiff no. 2. Gram Kachahri Case No. 01 of 2015 was registered.
In response, the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 149 of 2015 before the Sub Judge-III, Barh. They sought declaration of their right and title over the suit land and a declaration that the sale deed dated 13.09.2010 in favour of defendant no. 1 was void ab initio.
What the Court Examined and Decided
After institution of Title Suit No. 149 of 2015, the defendants appeared and filed written statements.
Defendant no. 1 (respondent 1st set) claimed that he was in possession of the suit land after purchase through the registered sale deed dated 13.09.2010 and after mutation of his name in government records. He argued that the sale deed dated 05.03.1982 in favour of plaintiff no. 2 covered only 27 decimals of land in Plot No. 2551. According to him, no sale deed had been executed for Plot No. 2552, and plaintiff no. 2 was in possession only of 27 decimals in Plot No. 2551, not 37 decimals.
He further contended that once he had purchased the suit land on 13.09.2010, defendant no. 2 had no remaining right in the property. Therefore, the later deed dated 29.01.2015 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 had no legal value.
In contrast, the defendants of the 2nd set supported the plaintiffs’ version in their written statement.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs alleged that defendant no. 1 continued to threaten them and had started cutting branches of the trees standing on the suit land. To stop this, on 10.10.2017 they filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking temporary injunction.
After hearing both sides, the trial court rejected the injunction application on 22.02.2018. It held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case in their favour. Having reached this view, the trial court did not discuss the other two necessary ingredients for granting injunction: balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 43 of 2018 (Tr. No. 02 of 2019) before the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Barh. On 06.07.2021, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s refusal of injunction.
The plaintiffs then approached the Patna High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in Civil Miscellaneous No. 380 of 2021. They sought setting aside of both lower court orders and a direction to maintain status quo over the suit land.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners argued that the courts below had overlooked material on record and failed in their primary duty to preserve the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The petitioners stressed that if defendant no. 1 was not restrained from cutting the trees, nothing would remain on the land by the time the suit was finally decided, rendering any decree meaningless.
They also argued that as the rectified sale deed of 2015 had not been set aside, the plaintiffs were entitled to protection by way of injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code.
On the other side, counsel for the respondent/defendant no. 1 supported the orders of the courts below. He contended that both courts had passed detailed orders after considering all materials and hearing both parties. He argued that it was unbelievable that the plaintiffs noticed the alleged defect in the 1982 deed only after 33 years. Even as per the plaint, the plaintiffs knew of the 2010 sale deed in the year 2010 but waited five years to file the suit.
The respondent’s counsel also pointed out that the trial of the title suit had progressed substantially: the plaintiffs’ evidence stood closed and the defendants were examining their witnesses. Granting injunction at this advanced stage, he argued, would cause irreparable loss to defendant no. 1, who according to him had title and possession since 2010. He also submitted that when both the trial court and the appellate court had refused injunction, the High Court should be slow to interfere.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha carefully considered the rival submissions.
The Court noted that the plaintiffs’ case was that they had a sale deed of 1982 for 37 decimals of land, but the deed did not mention measurement and plot number, though the boundary was correctly mentioned. The Court acknowledged that title generally flows from registered documents. However, it observed that, where the deed is silent on measurement and plot number and no dispute had arisen till 2010, it would not be proper to hold at this stage that the plaintiffs had no case.
The High Court pointed out that three sets of sale deeds were on record. In such a situation, it could not be said that the prima facie case lay entirely in favour of defendant no. 1. The plaintiffs had raised a bona fide dispute over the title claimed by defendant no. 1.
The Court emphasised that until the trial court finally decides the issue of title and validity of the various sale deeds, the suit property needs to be preserved.
Importantly, the High Court found that the courts below had failed to consider key material, such as the Pleader Commissioner’s report, the deposition of defendant no. 1, and the proceedings before the Gram Kachahri, along with pleadings indicating possession of the plaintiffs. These materials, according to the High Court, tended to show a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs.
The Court further examined the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The plaintiffs were under apprehension that defendant no. 1 would cut the trees from the suit land. They sought injunction to preserve the trees and to maintain the physical features of the land.
The Court reasoned that, where one party seeks merely to preserve the property and the other seeks to cut trees and change the character of the land without demonstrating any urgent necessity, the balance of convenience naturally lies in favour of preservation. If trees are cut and the nature of the land is altered, the harm may not be adequately compensable in money if the plaintiffs ultimately succeed.
On these considerations, the High Court concluded that the plaintiffs had established at least two ingredients for interim injunction—prima facie case and balance of convenience—and that they faced the risk of irreparable injury if the trees were cut.
The Court then referred to the Supreme Court decision in Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Das, (2004) 8 SCC 488. The Supreme Court had held that unless a party clearly shows that no irreparable loss will occur, courts should not permit change in the nature of the property, including alienation or transfer, which may cause loss to the party who may ultimately succeed and lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
Applying this principle, Justice Jha held that the orders of the trial court and appellate court refusing injunction were not sustainable. The High Court therefore set aside the order dated 22.02.2018 of the Sub Judge-III, Barh in Title Suit No. 149 of 2015 and the order dated 06.07.2021 of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Barh in Misc. Appeal No. 43 of 2018.
Allowing the Civil Miscellaneous petition, the High Court directed both parties to maintain status quo over the disputed suit property during pendency of the suit. It also directed the trial court to make all efforts to conclude the trial within six months from receipt or production of the High Court’s order, without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for landowners, purchasers and farmers involved in property disputes where trees or other valuable features stand on the land.
The Patna High Court clarified that during a serious title dispute, courts must focus on preserving the property so that any final decree is meaningful. If trees are cut or the land is altered, even a later victory in court may become hollow.
The decision also shows that higher courts can interfere with orders of both trial and appellate courts when those courts ignore key evidence or fail to apply the full “triple test” for injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
For litigants, the case underlines that even where sale deeds are disputed and overlapping, if there is a bona fide dispute and a real risk of permanent damage to the property, courts are inclined to preserve the status quo.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to temporary injunction to prevent cutting of trees and alteration of the suit land during pendency of the title suit.
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that there was a prima facie dispute over title, that balance of convenience favoured preservation of the property, and that cutting the trees would cause irreparable injury. It therefore granted relief by setting aside the refusal of injunction and directing status quo. - Issue: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with concurrent orders of the trial court and appellate court refusing injunction.
Answer: Yes, in the present facts. The Court held that the lower courts had erred by holding that there was no prima facie case and by not properly considering balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and material such as the Pleader Commissioner’s report and Gram Kachahri proceedings. This justified interference.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The Patna High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Das, (2004) 8 SCC 488 regarding the need to prevent change in the nature of property during litigation.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 380 of 2021
Case Title: Anand Prasad Sharma & Anr v. Nagendra Singh & Ors
Citation: 2024 (2) PLJR 145
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Advocates:
- For the petitioners/plaintiffs: Mr. Akash Shankar, Advocate
- For the respondents/defendants: Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Civil Miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent orders of the trial court and appellate court refusing temporary injunction in a title suit.
Link to Judgment: Click here to access the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
