Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57535 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8709 of 2016 Petitioner :- Javed Akhtar And 2 Ors. Respondent :- Sahab Zafar And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- ,Sikandar Azam Lari,Ved Byas Mishra Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. It is contended that plaintiffs-petitioners had instituted a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the defendants be restrained from transferring the property in dispute till partition takes place between the parties. In the said suit, application 6C was moved for grant of temporary injunction. The trial court rejected the said application against which a misc. appeal was filed. The misc. appeal was partly allowed and the matter was remitted back to trial court to decide application 6C afresh. Post remand, the trial court rejected the 6C application against which a Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2016 was preferred by plaintiff which has been rejected by order impugned. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the partition had not taken place between the parties, respondent nos. 1 to 3 who are defendants in the suit could not have transferred their share in favour of respondent no. 4 on 01.07.2013. According to him, at the time of pendency of ad interim injunction, the sale-deed has been executed by defendants. He further contends that the specific case of plaintiffs as set out in the plaint, especially paragraph no. 5 and 6 is concerned, is that no partition had taken place between the plaintiffs and defendants and they are in joint occupation of the said property. 4. Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4/subsequent purchaser submits that the paragraph 5 of the plaint clearly demonstrates that the plaintiffs are son of Late Nurul Hasan and they are living together in their portion. Similarly, it has been averred that defendant no. 1 and 2 in the suit are sons of Late Jafrul Hasan who are living in their share and similarly Late Jahirul Hasan, defendant no. 3 is living in his share. It is contended that a partition had taken place between Late Nurul Hasan, father of petitioners and Late Jafrul Hasan, father of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and Jahirul Hasan, defendant no. 3 (present respondent no. 3 in the writ petition). It is respondent nos. 1 to 3 who are defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the suit who have transferred their property in favour of respondent no. 4 through a registered sale-deed on 01.07.2013. He further contends that the said fact was clearly stated while opposing 6C application by contesting defendants that partition had already taken place between three brothers Late Nurul Hasan, Late Jafrul Hasan and Late Jahirul Hasan. 5. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. The plaint averment clearly indicates that Sheikh Abdul Waheed had three sons Late Nurul Hasan, Late Jafrul Hasan and Late Jahirul Hasan. The property in question was initially held jointly by sons of Sheikh Abdul Waheed. From the plaint averment, after the death of Nurul Hasan, his five sons are living together in their share as also the sons of Late Jafrul Hasan are living in their share along with Jahirul Hasan son of Sheikh Abdul Waheed. 7. The finding recorded by appellate court clearly indicates that three houses numbered as 87A is in the name of Nasim, Javed, Firoz who are sons of Nurul Hasan while House No. 87B is recorded in the name of Shahab Zafar son of Late Jafrul Hasan while House No. 87C in the name of Jahirul Hasan. It is the portion of 87B and 87C which has been transferred on 01.07.2013 in favour of respondent no. 4. 8. Once the appellate court has recorded finding to the effect that property in dispute has been recorded in the name of sons of two brothers, Late Nurul Hasan and Late Jafrul Hasan while the third house in the name of third defendant, Jahirul Hasan, prima facie, no case is made out for grant of temporary injunction in favour of petitioners as the claim for joint ownership over the property is not correct. The fact whether the property has been partitioned between the three brothers, Nurul Hasan, Jafrul Hasan and Jahirul Hasan is to be considered by the trial court once the issues are framed. 9. Prima facie, no case for interference is made out for grant of temporary injunction nor balance of convenience tilts in favour of petitioners as respondent no. 4 is the purchaser of the property from the sons of Jafrul Hasan and Jahirul Hasan son of Sheikh Abdul Waheed. If temporary injunction is granted, it would cause irreparable loss to respondent no. 4. 10. No case for interference is made out. 11. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 V.S.Singh Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad