1 2025:CGHC:20594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 432 of 2025 1 - Sabir Ansari S/o Shri Usman Ansari Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Sarangpur Tehsil And Police Station Balrapur District- Balramur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jameela Khatun W/o Shri Ali Hussain Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chandranagar Tehsil Ramanujganj District - Balrampu- Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Defendants) 2 - Naseem Ansari S/o Shri Usman Ansari Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Sarangpur Tehsil Balrampur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Ali Hussain S/o Shri Qasim Ansari Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Chandranagar Tehsil Ramanujganj District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - On @ Una Mohammed S/o Kamruddin Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Chandranagar Tehsil Ramanujganj District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Balrampur Ramanujgajn District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. R.L. Razak, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 06.05.2025 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the First District Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.9/2023 dated 07.12.2024 whereby, an appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction over the land bearing Survey No.810/4 admeasuring 0.40 hectares situated at Village Chandranagar, Tehsil-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur. The plaintiff further pleaded that respondent No.2 by playing fraud and without making payment of consideration executed a sale deed on 28.03.2022 for portion admeasuring 0.20 hectares out of 0.40 hectare in favour of respondent No.1. The plaintiff further pleaded that there was no division of the suit property. He would further submit that the plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC which was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.08.2023. Mr. Razak would contend that the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal which has been dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2024. He would further contend that the sale deed was executed by respondent No.2 without any authority of law. He would also submit that respondent No.1 has no legal right to take possession of 0.20 hectare of land out of 0.40 hectare. He would further argue that the sale deed was executed 3 by respondent No.2 by playing fraud. He would pray to set aside the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Razak. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. The Courts below recorded a concurrent finding that 0.20 hectare of land of Survey No.810/2 is recorded in the name of respondent No.1 as the land owner. It is also observed that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit property. Learned Courts below found prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury against the petitioner/plaintiff, therefore, the application for temporary injunction was rejected and the appeal was also dismissed. 6. A perusal of the documents annexed along with the writ petition would show that the suit property was sold by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 28.03.2022. The name of respondent No.1 has already been entered into the revenue records and he is in possession of the property. The petitioner/plaintiff could not establish his possession over the suit property. As the petitioner is not in possession of the property, no prima facie case is made out in his favour. -4- 7. Further, a sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1, therefore, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of respondent No.1, thus, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC and the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error of law while affirming it. 8. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha