2025:JHHC:19193 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 13 of 2024 1. Janardhan Singh, aged about 65 years, Son of Brij Narayan Singh, resident of Village – Pansa, Tola Bardiha, P.O. – Pansa, P.S. – Haidarnagar, District – Palamau. 2. Smt. Sudha Kumari, aged about 38 years, wife of Manish Kumar Singh, resident of Village – Lohardaga, Tola Amla Toli, P.O. and P.S. – Lohardaga, District – Lohardaga. 3. Smt. Neelu Devi, aged about 35 years, wife of Nandlal Singh, resident of Village – Pansa, Tola Bardiha, P.O. – Pansa, P.S. – Haidarnagar, District – Palamau. 4. Ashok Kumar Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Prasidh Narayan Singh, resident of Village – Kabra Khurd, P.O. – Kabra Khurd, P.S. – Haidarnagar, District – Palamau. 5. Lalan Prasad Singh, aged about 58 years, son of Brij Narayan Singh, resident of Village – Pansa, Tola Bardiha, P.O. – Pansa, P.S. – Haidarnagar, District – Palamau. ….. Principal Defendants / Principal Respondents / Petitioners Versus 1. Rakesh Kumar Pathak. 2. Sumit Kumar Pathak. 3. Anil Kumar Pathak. 4. Manoranjan Kumar Pathak. 5. Harish Kumar Pathak. 6. Praveen Kumar Pathak. All sons of Nand Kishore Pathak. 7. Nand Kishore Pathak, son of Late Sahdeo Pathak. 8. Malti Kuer, widow of Late Naveen Kumar Pathak. 9. Nitesh Pathak. 10. Nikhil Pathak. Nos. 9 and 10 sons of Late Naveen Kr. Pathak. 11. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, son of Nand Kishore Pathak. All residents of Village – Pansa Bardihsa, P.O. – Pansa, P.S. – Haidarnagar, District – Palamau (Jharkhand). ….. Plaintiffs / Appellants / Opp. Parties 12. Sadhna Pathak, wife of Binod Mishra, resident of Satendra Nagar, Aurangabad, P.O. and P.S. – Aurangabad, District – Aurangabad (Bihar). ….. Proforma Defendant / Proforma Respondent / Proforma Opp. Party 13. Mahendra Kumar Pathak. 14. Nagendra Kumar Pathak. Nos. 13 and 14 sons of Late Chandra Kishore Pathak. 2025:JHHC:19193 2 15. Naveen Kumar, son of Late Rajendra Kumar Pathak. All residents of House No. 25/2 Shilp Tenoment and Duplex, New V.I.P. Road, Vadodara, P.O. + P.S. – Vadodra, District – Vadodra, Gujarat. ….. Principal Defendants / Respondents / Proforma Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate. For the O.P. Nos. 1 to 12 : Mr. Ramawatar Chaubey, Advocate. Mrs. Diksha Rani, Advocate. Mr. Riday Mukherjee, Advocate. --------- Order No. 09/Dated: 15th July, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by learned District Judge-V, Palamau at Daltonganj allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 2022 and reversing the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in Original Suit No. 61 of 2021, by which the learned trial court has rejected the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 52 of 2022 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. 3. The plaintiffs / respondents filed Original Suit No. 61 of 2021 against the defendants / petitioners for declaring their right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and further declaration that four registered sale deeds dated 31.07.2021 and two registered sale deeds dated 23.09.2021 are void ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiffs along with other reliefs. 4. The claim of plaintiffs is based upon their pleadings that suit schedule property measuring total area 11.75 acres of different plots and khata numbers situated in Village – Pansa, Bardiha, P.S. – Haidarnagar, District – Palamau had been purchased jointly by 2025:JHHC:19193 3 Ramdeo Pathak and Sahadeo Pathak, both sons of Sabilakh Pathak vide Registered Deed of Sale dated 24.01.1939 from Jagbas Kuar and Gulbas Kuar. In course of time Ramdeo Pathak and Sahdeo Pathak amicably partitioned their purchased land between co-sharer. Accordingly, demand has been opened separately in their names. 5. It is further alleged that Sahdeo Pathak had two sons namely, Chandra Kishore Pathak and Nand Kishore Pathak. Chandra Kishore Pathak was by birth an idiot though he was employed in Dalmia Company posted at Baulia in the District of Rohtas and Nand Kishore Pathak was V.L.W. within District of Hazaribagh and later on promoted to Block Agriculture Officer. 6. It is further alleged that the sons of Chandra Kishore Pathak had no source of their livelihood, hence, they shifted to Varodara in the State of Gujarat and they have no concerned with the village – Pansa Bardiha within the District of Palamau. 7. It is further alleged that vide Registered Deed of Sale dated 28.01.1966, the land appertaining to Khata No. 183, Area – 0.60 acres was also purchased jointly in the name of Nand Kishore Pathak and Chandra Kishore Pathak, but the consideration money was paid by Nand Kishore Pathak and Chandra Kishore Pathak was simply a name lender in the said sale deed. He was also disqualified from inheritance because being idiot by birth. 8. It is further alleged that Sahdeo Pathak executed a registered deed of gift dated 01.08.1998 for half area of land which he has got in an amicable partition with his brother in favour of his daughter-in-law namely Shanti Devi, wife of Nand Kishore Pathak. 9. It is further alleged that in the month of July, 2021 started lying their claim over the suit land and on enquiry the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants have purchased part area of the suit land 2025:JHHC:19193 4 from Janardan Singh, who has obtained general power of attorney jointly from Mahendra Kumar Pathak, Chandra Kishore Pathak and others and defendant no. 1 Janardan Singh has started transferring the suit land in favour of different persons. Hence, the suit was filed and also application for temporary injunction was present before the learned trial court, which was rejected, but the learned appellate court, through the impugned order has set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. and passed interim injunction in favour of plaintiffs / respondents. 10. The case of petitioners / defendants is that the description of the property given in the plaint is not correct. The specific plea of defendants is that Sahdeo Pathak has two sons namely, Chandra Kishore Pathak and Nand Kishore Pathak and after death of Sahdeo Pathak, his both sons inherited half and half share through amicable partition between them. Plaintiffs are taking false plea that Chandra Kishore Pathak by birth was idiot, although admitted that he was in job and has his own huge family consisting of wife and sons. 11. It is further alleged that Chandra Kishore Pathak remained in possession of own allotted share and after his death, his sons namely, Nagendra Kumar Pathak, Mahendra Kumar Pathak and Rajendra Kumar Pathak have inherited the lands and came into possession thereof and they have executed power of attorney in favour of Janardan Singh to sale the lands inherited from their father. The plaintiffs with an ulterior motive to grab all properties has made concocted story that the defendant’s father namely, Chandra Kishore Pathak was idiot by birth and disqualified from inheritance, therefore, there is no prima facie case of the plaintiffs and they have set up a concocted case of title, which has to be decided at the time of trial. The defendants are in possession of their own share, as such balance 2025:JHHC:19193 5 of convenience also lies in favour of the defendants / petitioners and if the injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs, they will suffer irreparable loss. 12. The plaintiffs / respondents, against the order passed by learned trial court (rejecting the prayer for interim injunction) preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 2022, which has been allowed by the impugned order and assailed in this revision. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial court while deciding the Miscellaneous Appeal has travelled beyond the record and believed the entire story concocted by the plaintiffs to be gospel truth including the fact that father of the petitioners Chandra Kishore Pathak was idiot by birth and disqualified from succeeding property, inspite of the fact that Chandra Kishore Pathak was in service having huge family and inherited half property after death of his father which after partition with his brother Nand Kishore Pathak. The learned appellate court has observed as under:- 12. The plaintiffs have filed the certified copy of sale deed dated 24.01.1939 executed by Jagwas Kunwar and Gulwas Kunwar in favour of Ramdeo Pathak and Sahdeo Pathak in respect of 11.75 acre of land. I find that after partition of the said purchased land, the lands came in the share of Sahdeo Pathak became his self acquired property and he had every right to alienate his share of land. The plaintiffs have filed certified copy of deed of gift dated 01.08.1998 executed by Sahdeo Pathak in favour of Shanti Devi in respect of 5.87 1½ acre of land which shows that Sahdeo Pathak gifted his entire share of land acquired through sale deed dated 24.01.1939 to his daughter-in-law Shanti Devi. It further appears that Shanti Devi mutated her name in revenue register and paying rent to the government. The plaintiffs have also filed rent receipt in support of their claim. The plaintiffs have claimed their title and possession over the said land as legal heirs of Shanti Devi. The defendant No. 6, 7 & 8 are sons of 2025:JHHC:19193 6 Chandrakishor Pathak, who claim over the portion of suit land as legal heirs of Chandrakishor Pathak. I find that there is nothing on the lower court record to show that 5.87 1½ acre of land of Sahdeo Pathak was partition between his two sons namely Nandkishor Pathak and Chandrakishor Pathak and they got half and half share in the said land. In such view of the matter, I find that there is strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff in respect of title and possession over the suit land. 14. The aforesaid observations are palpably beyond the pleadings of the parties and from bare pleading of the plaintiffs that his own brother was idiot from birth and disqualified for inheritance is beyond truth and plaintiffs have to strictly prove the above facts in order to decide the case of the plaintiffs. The defendants are in possession of their own share of property, for which power of attorney has been executed and all the sales are genuine and valid. Due to impugned order passed in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendants are suffering irreparable loss. Hence, the impugned order is fit to be set aside allowing this revision. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties refuting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned appellate court has very wisely and aptly apprised and appreciated the prima facie materials including the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs and also the principles for granting injunction, passed the order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that since the petitioners are not residing in village where property is situated and have appointed power of attorney holder, who will illegally transfer the lands under suit without any partition between the parties by metes and bounds causing greater hardship to the plaintiffs than the defendants and balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiffs. 2025:JHHC:19193 7 Hence, impugned order requires no interference by way of this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 16. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of rival contentions of the parties. It appears that there is contested dispute regarding inheritance of the property by the father of defendants / petitioners, which has to be decided on merits. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and contesting defendants (who have executed power of attorney in favour of defendant no. 1) have also prima facie title and interest in the suit property, which has also to be decided on merits. At this juncture, grant of injunction is only with a view to protect the suit property from wastage, damage or alienation leading to further complication and multiplicity of proceedings in future, hence, any interference in the impugned order is not required. 17. In view of above discussions and reasons, this revision is dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within nine months from the date of this order. No unnecessary adjournments shall be granted to either party. 18. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/