1 2026:CGHC:19724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 124 of 2026 1 - Bhushan S/o Late Shriram Sinha Aged About 36 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village- Dumarpali, Post- Pusada, Tahsil- Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. 2 - Tikam S/o Late Shriram Sinha Aged About 34 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village- Dumarpali, Post- Pusada, Tahsil- Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. 3 - Pritam S/o Late Shriram Sinha Aged About 32 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village- Dumarpali, Post- Pusada, Tahsil- Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. 4 - Rani D/o Late Shriram Sinha, W/o Sandeep Sinha Aged About 30 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village- Dumarpali, Post- Pusada, Tahsil- Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. 5 - Ramtula Bai (Illegal) W/o Late Shriram Sinha Aged About 55 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village- Dumarpali, Post- Pusada, Tahsil- Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 2 1 - Smt. Gitabai D/o Late Shriram Sinha, W/o Gosai Ram Sinha Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Sargod, Post- Jamgaon, Tahsil- Fingeshwar, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. 2 - Smt. Kejabai D/o Shriram Sinha, W/o Late Lekhanram Sinha, Aged About 58 Years Occupation- Agriculture And House Wife, R/o Village And Post- Borsi, Tahsil Rajim, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.3/State : Ms. Richa Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ) Order on Board 28/04/2026 The Present Petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (FTC), District Mahasamund in Misc. Civil Appeal No. H-06/2023 whereby the Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the respondents No. 1 & 2 has been allowed and the defendants have been restrained from alienating the suit property till the final disposal of the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the defendant before the learned trial court. Respondent No.1 and 2 instituted a suit seeking declaration of title, partition and separate possession of the suit property mentioned in Schedule A,B,C and D 3 annexed with the plaint claiming 1/6th share therein. It is contended that while the plaintiffs assert the suit property to be their ancestral property, the defendants claim the same to be of their self acquired property purchased through various registered sale deeds executed between the years 1986 to 2019. It is further submitted that the defendants are in possession of the suit property and a false claim has been raised by the plaintiffs in the suit. 3. He would also submit that the learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. However, the appellate court, without proper appreciation of thefacts and documents, has allowed the application and restrained the defendants from alienating the suit property till final adjudication of the suit thereby adversely affecting their right to deal with their own property. When the defendants are claiming and having documents that it is their self acquired property, no injunction order can be passed against them. Therefore the impugned order passed by the appellate court may be set aside and the application of the plaintiff may be dismissed. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. Upon perusal of the plaint (Annexure P/2), it transpires that the plaintiffs have claimed declaration of title, partition and separate possession over their alleged 1/6th share in the suit property. It has been submitted that the property originally belonged to one Sriram, who died 4 on 17.12.2022 and the plaintiffs being his children from his first wife Tulsi, have inherited the same. It is further their case that defendant No.5 Ramtula has no valid title over the suit property. 6. Since her name stood mutated in the schedule D property, therefore she has been impleaded as a party/defendant in the present proceedings. It is further contended that the plaintiffs do not poossess any valid right, title or interest over the suit property. The substance of the plaintiffs’ claim is that the suit property is their ancestral property. 7. From perusal of the written statement Annexure P/3 filed by the defendants, it is evident that although the defendants have admitted the relationship of the parties with Sriram, they have disputed the statusof Ramtula and have asserted that the properties described in Schedule A, B and C are self acquired propertieis purchased through registered sale deeds, whereas Schedule D property is ancestral. 8. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC seeking restraint against alienation of the suit property, apprehending that the defendants may transfer the same. 9. Order XXXIX Rule 1 (a) reads as under: “ Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC empowers the trial court to grant temporary injunction where the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of the decree and to restrain such act or make such order for the purpose of staying and preventing, wassting, damaging alienation save the property.” 5 10. From the perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the learned appellate court has duly considered the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC and has granted a limited injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property during pendency of the suit so as to avoid any further complication or multiplicity of proceedings andto preserve the subject matter of the dispute. 11. Since the impugned order merely restrains alienation and does not dispossess the defendants, as the order is aimed at safeguarding the property till adjudication of rights of the parties, I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.05 11:00:53 +0530