1 2025:CGHC:17739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 37 of 2024 1 - Janki Sao D/o Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 46 Years W/o Gyanchand Sao R/o Lig-25, Housing Board Colony, Bhilai, Bmy Charoda Dadar, Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhoj Kumari D/o Ramnarayan Sahu, W/o Chetanlal Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 2b, Street No. 73, Sector 6, Near Mgm School Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...Plaintiff/Appellants versus 1 - Yugal Bai W/o Late Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 66 Years R/o Village And Post Paarraas, Ward No. 01 Balod, Tehsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kaushal Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post Paarraas, Ward No. 01 Balod, Tehsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Madhusadan Sahu S/o Late Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village And Post Paarraas, Ward No. 01 Balod, Tehsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - Domendra Sahu S/o Late Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And Post Paarraas, Ward No. 01 Balod, Tehsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... ...Defendants/Respondents For appellants : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Dr. Devangan, Adv. For respondent No. 5 : Ms. Mandvi Bhardwaj, Panel lawyer Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.04.24 11:08:20 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 17/04/2025 1. With consent of the parties, heard learned counsel for the parties finally. 2. This misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the order (Annexure A-1) dated 5-2-2024 passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2022, whereby the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code has been partly allowed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Balod, District Balod (CG). (Henceforth, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court) 3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of the registered gift deed dated 12-8-2021 null and void and for partition of suit property of the parties situated at village Pevro, Balod, Parras, Ranitarai and Khertarai. Plaintiffs are sisters of defendants No. 2 to 4 (brothers) and defendant No. 1 is mother of the parties. As per plaintiffs, the suit property total area 7.291 hectare situated at above five villages, are ancestral properties of the parties, therefore, the plaintiffs filed civil suit claiming their share on the strength of inheritance over the suit property. It is also contended by the plaintiffs that, registered gift deed executed by the defendant No. 1 3 (mother) in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 is invalid, because property gifted was ancestral property of the parties, therefore, the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to execute gift deed in respect of said property. Along with the civil suit, plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC praying for restraining any modification in revenue record in respect of suit property. 4. Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed written statement along with reply of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC stating inter alia that, the suit property situated at village Balod and village Parras has already been partitioned between the parties. It is further pleading of the defendants that the suit property situated at village Pevro was received by the defendant No. 1 (mother of parties) from her parental side, as such, it is self-acquired property of defendant No. 1 and therefore, she has executed registered gift deed in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 in respect of suit property at village Pevro, but the suit property situated at village Ranitarai and Khertarai are undivided property. Defendants have raised objection that since partition has been already effected between the parties of the suit properties situated at village Balod, Parras and suit property situated at village Pevro has been gifted by defendant No. 1 to defendants No. 2 to 4, therefore, no injunction as sought for by the plaintiffs can be granted in their favour. 5. Learned trial Court after hearing parties, granted order of status quo in respect of suit property situated at village Ranitarai and village Khertarai, but declined to grant status quo in respect of the suit 4 property situated at village Balod, Parras and village Pevro. 6. It is not in dispute that the suit property situated at village Balod, Parras, Ranitarai and Khertarai is ancestral property of both the parties. It is claim of the defendants that suit property situated at village Pevro was self-acquired property of defendant No. 1 (mother of the parties) as she had obtained that property from her parental side. But when specific question was posed to learned counsel for the defendants that, whether the revenue documents have been filed by them to demonstrate the fact that the suit property situated at village Pevro was obtained by defendant No. 1 from her parental side, he submit that no document has been filed by them in this regard. Since both the parties are real brothers and sisters and defendant No. 1 is their mother, the suit property, as pleaded by the plaintiffs, is their ancestral property, as such, in facts situation of the case, both the parties are having right and title over the suit property and they also are in constructive joint possession over it. 7. Vide injunction application, plaintiffs have sought only temporary reliefs with regard to restraining defendants from getting any modification in the revenue record of the suit property. 8. Having considered the facts situation of the instant case and limited temporary relief sought for by the plaintiffs, to prevent further dispute, I feel inclined to grant the relief sought for by the plaintiffs. 9. Consequently, the instant misc. appeal is allowed. The order of status quo granted by learned trial Court in respect of suit property situated at 5 village Ranitarai and Khertarai vide order dated 5-2-2024 (Annexure A- 1) passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Balod, District Balod (CG) in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2022 is further extended to the suit property situated at village Balod, village Parras and village Pevro. Both the parties further restrained to create third party interest in respect of the suit property till disposal of the said civil suit. 10. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt / submission of copy of this order. 11. Counsel for both the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court in expeditious disposal of the case. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak