1 2026:CGHC:25233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 251 of 2025 1 - Smt. Rita Mukherjee W/o Late Shri Arun Kumar Mukherjee Aged About 66 Years R/o H. No. 56, Anand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Manjula Ghosh W/o Shir Sanjay Ghosh Aged About 47 Years R/o H. No. 56, Anand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Manish Mukherjee S/o Late Shri Arun Kumar Mukherjee Aged About 44 Years R/o H. No. 84, Bakhtawar Singh Block, Asian Game Village, Serifort, New Delhi --- Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Kamal Mukherjee W/o Late Shri Sukumar Mukherjee Aged About 72 Years R/o H. No. 08, Shrinath Residency, Near Mayank Blue Water Park, Bicholi, Hapsi Road, Chhawani, Indore (M.P.) 2 - Smt. Subhra Bhattacharjee W/o Shomendra Bhattacharjee Aged About 44 Years R/o H. No. 08, Shrinath Residency, Near Mayank Blue Water Park, Bicholi, Hapsi Road, Chhawani, Indore (M.P.) 3 - Smt. Reetu Dange W/o Shri Shripad Dange Aged About 42 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Pranay Mitra In Impugned Order) R/o Aiissms Institute Of Management, Kennedy Road Near Rto, Pune, 411001 (Ms) (Address Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order) 4 - Devshri Mitra W/o Shri Pranay Mitra Aged About 36 Years Permanent Address- C/o Smt. Subhra Bhattacharjee, H. No. 08, Shrinath Residency, Near Mayank Blue Water Park, Bicholi, Hapsi Road, Chhawani, Indore (M.P.) 5 - Government Employees Corporation Housing Board Society Limited, Through- President, Address- Near Pragya Hospital, Anand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Nazul Officer Raipur Collectorate Office, Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents For appellants : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv. For respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, PL For respondent No. 5 : None. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 19-6-2026 1. With consent of learned counsel for both the parties, heard the matter finally. 2. This Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the order dated 14-10-2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the 9th District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 67A/2023, whereby the application filed by them under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) has been rejected. 3. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the civil suit for declaration, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants on the ground that, the suit house bearing, Plot No. 56, Nazul Sheet No. 1001/1, area 80 x 50 sq. ft., total area 4,000 sq.ft. situated at Raipur was allotted by respondent No. 5/Government Employees Cooperative Housing Board Society Limited (henceforth referred to as ‘Society’) to late R.D. Mukharjee, who was grand-father of appellants/plaintiffs and respondents No. 1 to 4. Subsequently, there was some need of money, hence, loan was required to be taken from the respondent no. 5/Society, but since aforesaid suit property was in the name of R.D. Mukharjee, therefore, loan was taken in the name of Sukumar Mukherjee and in the record of the Society, name of Sukumar Mukherjee was recorded. Subsequently, the 3 suit property is being recorded in the name of Sukumar Mukherjee, but respondents are not residing at Raipur, rather, the appellants/plaintiffs are residing at Raipur. Respondents No. 1 to 4/defendants No. 1 to 4 were willing to sell the suit property, therefore, the plaintiffs filed aforesaid civil suit for partition, declaration of 1/2 share of the suit property along with other reliefs. The appellants/plaintiffs also filed application for grant of temporary injunction in their favour restraining respondents No. 1 to 4 from alienating/transferring or creating third party interest. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed their reply of injunction application that, since the suit property / house is recorded in the name of husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 to 4, as such, Sukumar Mukharjee was absolute owner of suit property/ house, which has been recorded also in the record of the Society along with revenue record. Therefore, plaintiffs have no right over the suit property/house. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly rejected their application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. Hence, this appeal deserves to be rejected. 5. When specific question was posed to the learned counsel for both the parties, both of them contended that, earlier the suit property/house was alloted by the respondent No. 5/Society to R.D. Mukherjee in the year 1971. It was also informed by them that, in the year 1973, it was recorded by the Society in the name of Sukumar Mukherjee. Thus, it is clear that, earlier the land was allotted by respondent No. 5/Society to R.D. Mukherjee, though 4 it has not been cleared by the plaintiffs that, under which authority, late R.D. Mukherjee obtained that property, whether through sale deed or through which document, but it is clear that firstly the land was allotted to R.D. Mukherjee by respondent No. 5/Society, therefore, right of property flow to his son Sukumar Mukherjee (husband of respondent No. 2 and father of respondents No. 3 and 4). Thus, prima facie, it is found that, the suit property / house belongs to parental property of both the parties. So far as possession is concerned, it was also contended by both the parties that, earlier family of both brothers i.e. late Arun Kumar Mukharjee (husband and father of plaintiffs) and late Sukumar Mukherjee (husband and father of defendants No. 1 to 4) were residing in the suit property/ house jointly. As per pleading of plaintiffs, Sukumar Mukherjee died in the year 2007 and thereafter, respondents No. 1 to 4 are not residing at Raipur and they are residing at Indore and Pune, meaning thereby, appellants/plaintiffs are residing in the suit property/house. Thus, the appellants/plaintiffs are in possession of suit property. In view of above facts that, the suit property is parental property of both the parties and appellants/plaintiffs are residing in suit property since many years, even at the time of filing of the civil suit. Therefore, it is very much clear that, not only prima facie case is in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs, but balance of convenience also lies in their favour. In such a situation, if temporary injunction, as sought for, is not granted in 5 their favour and if respondents No. 1 to 4 alienate or transfer or create third party interest in respect of the suit property/ house, then appellants/plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss. Thus, all three ingredients necessary for grant of temporary injunction, are found to be in their favour, as such, they deserve for the same. But without considering aforesaid facts, maticulously, learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the plaintiffs by the impugned order, which is found to be perverse. Hence, the same deserves to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, this MCC is allowed. The impugned order dated 14- 10-2025 (Annexure A-1) is set aside. The application filed by the appellants / plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC in the civil suit No. 67A/2023 is allowed. The respondents No. 1 to 4/defendants No. 1 to 4 are restrained from alienating/transferring or creating third party interest in respect of suit property/ house till disposal of the Civil Suit No. 67A/2023 pending before the 9th District Judge, Raipur. 7. Appeal is accordingly allowed. 8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.06.25 11:14:51 +0530