1 2026:CGHC:26258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 76 of 2024 1 - Ashok Kumar Pathak S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Pathak Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Juna, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Krishna Kumar Pathak S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Pathak Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Juna, Bilaspur, Kila Ward, In Front Of Jaanki Dairy, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pramod Pathak S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Pathak Aged About 58 Years R/o Kashyap Colony, Street No. 3, Near Old Bus Stand, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Praveen Kumar Pathak S/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Pathak Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Khaira, P. O. Pandhi, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Shasikala Pandey W/o Late Shri Sushila Kumar Pandey Aged About 64 Years R/o Angeya Nagar, H. No. B-223, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Beena Dubey W/o Vinod Kumar Dubey Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Chhuri, P. O. Chhuri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Phool Bai W/o Late Shri Ganesh Prasad Pathak Aged About 84 Years R/o Village Khaira, P. O. Pandhi, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.07.01 10:45:55 +0530 2 7 - Smt. Ishwari Pathak W/o Shri Krishna Kumar Pathak Aged About 56 Years R/o Juna Bilaspur, Kila Ward In Front Of Janki Dairy, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 6 & 7 For State/Respondent No.8 : : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant has preferred the present miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), challenging the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the First District Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) in Civil Suit No.61A/2019, whereby the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff has filed a civil suit (Annexure P-5) seeking a declaration that he is a co-owner and joint possessor of the suit property mentioned in paragraphs 3 & 3(A) of the plaint. The suit has been filed on the ground that the suit property was purchased from the income of the joint family property; however, respondent/defendant No.1 purchased the same in the name of his wife (respondent/defendant No.7). 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the appellant was in government service and, therefore, reamined away from his native place. Consequently, respondent/defendant No.1 was managing both the joint family property as well as the parental property of appellant’s/plaintiff’s wife. He further submits that, from income of aforesaid properties, respondent/defendant No.1 purchased the suit property in the names of his wife and his father-in-law (father of Ishwari Pathak). It is further submitted that a written partition was effected between the brothers on 28.05.2012; however, the suit properties involved in the present civil suit were not a subject matter of said partition. Rather, there was an oral agreement between the brothers that the suit properties would subsequently be given to their sisters and mother (respondent Nos.4 to 6 respectively). He further submits that, out of the suit properties, one land bearing Khasra No.738/1, Rakba, 0.200 hectares, has already been gifted by respondent/defendant No.1 to his daughter through a registered gift deed, and he is trying to transfer / alienate the remaining suit properties. Therefore, all three essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction are in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, despite that, the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by him. Hence, learned counsel prays that the present appeal may be allowed, the impugned order (Annexure P-10) be set aside, and the temporary injunction sought by the appellant/plaintiff be granted in his favour. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 6, and 7 submits that respondent No. 1 did not purchase the suit properties in the names of his wife and his father-in-law from the 4 income of the joint family property. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the State is a formal party in instant case. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The parties are brothers, sisters, mother, and sister-in-law, thus they are family members. It is pleading of the appellant/plaintiff that a written partition of the joint family property was effected on 28.05.2012. If the suit properties have been purchased from the income of joint family property of the parties, then they ought to have formed part of partition deed dated 28.05.2012. However, when a specific question was posed to learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, he fairly submits that the suit properties of instant civil suit were not the subject matter of the said partition. 9. As per pleading of the appellant/plaintiff, the suit properties were purchased by respondent/defendant No.1 in the names of his wife and his father-in-law. Whether the suit properties were purchased from the income of joint family property or from the income of the parental property of appellant’s/plaintiff’s wife is a matter that can only be decided on merit. 10. Having considered the fact that the suit properties were not included in the partition deed dated 28.05.2012, and the same was purchased by respondent/defendant No.1 in the names of his wife and his father-in- law, and that learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff informs the Court that the suit properties are presently in the physical possession 5 of respondent/defendant No.1 or his wife (respondent No.7), this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order of the learned trial Court. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff. It is also apt to be noted here that, even if there would have an oral agreement between the brothers at the time of the partition dated 28.05.2012 that the suit properties would subsequently be given to their mother and sisters, none of them has asserted any independent claim in respect of the suit properties. Therefore, this ground also does not support the case of the appellant/plaintiff. 12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, hence, the same is upheld. Consequently, the present miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar