[2026:JHHC:25312] 1 C. M.P. No.196 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.196 of 2026 ------ 1. Kuleshwar Sao aged about 65 years, Son of late Kali Sao, resident of village Pipradih, P.O. and P.S. Simariya, District-Chatra. 2. Pairu Sao aged about 75 years Son of Late Kali Sao, 3. Keshri Sao aged about 52 years Son of Late Kali Sao 4. Sahdeo Sahu aged about 73 years, Son of Late Kali Sao, 5. Sandip Kumar aged about 35 years, Son of Mishri Sao, 6. Pradip Sao, aged about 28 years, Son of Mishri Sao, 7. Manoj Kumar aged about 35 years, Son of Keshri Sao, 8. Saroj Sao aged about 32 years, Son of Mishri Sao, 9. Raju Sao aged about 35 years, Son of Sahdeo Sao, 10. Bitu Kumar aged about 19 years, Son of Sahdeo Sao, 11. Randhir Sao aged about 30 years, Son of Vijay Sao; 12. Kamlesh Kumar, aged about 22 years, Son of Mahavir Sao, 13. Sheopujan Kumar aged about 19 years, Son of Mahavir Sao; All residents of Village Eregadda (Salgi, P.O. and P.S. Simariya, District-Chatra). 14. Mishri @ Mishori Sao aged about 62 years, Son of Late Kali Sao, resident of village Bagra More, Ranchi Road, P.O. and P.S. Simariya, District-Chatra. 15. Vijay Sao aged about 55 years, Son of Pairu Sao; 16. Mahabir Sao aged about 53 years, Son of Pairu Sao; Petitioner Nos. 15 and 16 are resident of village Salgi, P.O. and P,.S. Simariya, District- Chatra. 17. Rohan Prasad aged about 55 years, Son of late Mahadeo Sao, resident of Village Bagra More, Ranchi Road, P.O. and P.S. Simariya, District- Chatra. … Petitioners. Versus [2026:JHHC:25312] 2 C. M.P. No.196 of 2026 1. Rajendra Sao @ Rajendra Prasad Son of Late Baijnath Sao @ Baijnath Prasad; 2. Arun Prasad Son of Late Baijnath Sao @ Baijnath Prasad; 3. Kedar Kumar son of Late Baijnath Sao @ Baijnath Prasad; All residents of Village Eregadda (Salgi), P.O. and P.S. Simariya, District-Chatra. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties. : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to set aside the order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2024 by the District Judge-I, Chatra whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge-I, Chatra has allowed the Misc. Civil Application No. 3 of 2024 and set aside the order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 93 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III, Chatra upon final adjudication of the injunction petition set aside the order dated 30.03.2024 whereby interim relief granted by the Court concerned by which the Court passed the status quo order in this suit. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite parties herein as being the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 93 of 2022 filed the suit with the [2026:JHHC:25312] 3 C. M.P. No.196 of 2026 prayer for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, recovery of possession and other reliefs. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land was recorded in the name of Latan Sao in the cadastral Survey. After the death of Latan Sao, the suit land was abandoned. The ex-landlord Pandey Harangi Singh entered into the suit land and the suit land was taken in settlement by Deo Narain Sao in the year 1924. After settlement ex-landlord issued rent receipt and Deo Narain Sao was the Kabuliyat Raiyat and was in actual possession and grew various crops. After the death of Deo Narain Sao, his only son Baijnath Sao inherited the property as a successor and came in physical possession of land. After abolition of Zamindari, the said land was vested in the State of Bihar which recognized the Raiyati right of Deo Narain Sao and demand was opened and government rent receipt was issued. Baijnath Sao for his legal necessities sold the 0.41 acres of land to one Rukmini Devi, in the year 1975 and put her in possession and the name of Sukmani Devi was also mutated. In January, 2022, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants are trying to get online rent receipt, thereafter, they began to lay false claim over the suit land and threatened the plaintiffs to forcibly dispossess them from the suit land. The defendants without right, title and interest over the suit land began construction of iron tent without concrete sheets and got initiated the proceedings under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. with respect to the Schedule ‘B’ land of the suit. [2026:JHHC:25312] 4 C. M.P. No.196 of 2026 4. The case of the defendants on the other hand is that after the death of Latan Sao who died issueless, his property devolved upon his nearest agnate Rang Lal Sao and Rang Lal Sao came in possession of the suit land after the death of Latan Sao, and paid rent to the ex-landlord as long as he was alive and after his death his six sons including the Deo Narain Sao came in peaceful possession of the property including the suit land. The defendants denied that Deo Narain Sao out of his own income took settlement. 5. The learned District Judge-I, Chatra considered that it is the admitted case of the defendants regarding issuance of rent receipt and possession of the property in favour of the Deo Narain Sao, the grandfather of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land and subsequently, this suit is being inherited by the plaintiffs. Though, the dispute erupted due to the construction over the suit land which is claimed by the respondent to have come in their share as per the oral mutual amicable family partition, but the defendants did not deny the claim of the plaintiffs over the suit land categorically. The learned District Judge-I, Chatra also considered that the report submitted by the Officer-In-Charge of Simariya Police Station in the proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. manifest that the construction done by the defendants over the suit property surcharge the atmosphere of tension, violence and dispute amongst the parties. If the construction is stopped, no prejudice should be caused to the defendants and the balance of [2026:JHHC:25312] 5 C. M.P. No.196 of 2026 convenience lies in the favour of the plaintiffs and there is all likelihood of irreparable loss to the plaintiffs, if the construction still continues. Hence, the learned District Judge-I, Chatra set aside the order impugned before it, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division)-III, Chatra in Original Suit No. 93 of 2022 dated 20.09.2024 and directed both the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of Original Suit No. 93 of 2022. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned order being not sustainable in law, be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as the petitioners even not dared to whisper a word as to how the impugned order is not sustainable in law. It is therefore submitted that this C.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the admitted case of the plaintiffs and the defendants that they are coparceners of the joint family property and the subject matter of suit is joint family property. There is no partition by metes and bounds either by any document or by any suit. The dispute between the parties is regarding the construction made over a portion of the joint property by one of the coparceners. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the then District Judge-I, Chatra [2026:JHHC:25312] 6 C. M.P. No.196 of 2026 vide order dated 21.08.2025 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2024 by directing the parties to maintain Status quo till the disposal of Original Suit No. 93 of 2022, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, this C.M.P. is being without merit is dismissed. 11. In view of the disposal of this C.M.P, pending I.A., if any is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th August, 2026 AFR/ Amar Uploaded on-22/08/2026