^ t-1 gngle Ben^ IN 'mS HIGH C00K.T OE SBDICSStSSS AT BILASP0R (C.G. ) Mise. Appeal No.^^_/2003. >i?ELIANT PIAINTIST ,s Rajesh KUBiar aged 33 years S/o late Shri Brijlal Verina, resj-dent of Palar.t, Tafa. Palari, Eiistt. Ralpur (C.S.). versus RBSPONBENTS / BEFENQAH'rS" ,^-.' ^t&' ^^ ^?y.^ ^-\c:''£>-'" '•"'>'>^ ^^ ^^' ^° ^- Shri Beo Prakasb, aged 48 years S/o late Sbri Brijlal Verma, resident of I Park Sweet Hoase No.l, Ciboubey eoloney, Saipur, Tah. & Bistt. Raipur (C.G.). 2. Sticl R.K.Chandrakar, ageQ 5©year, S/o Shri R.chandratear, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.). Shri Om Prakasb aged 24 years -t s/e Shri Punit Ram Kbute^ : :l|! resident o£ Palari, Tah. iPalari,;;! ©istt.Raipar (C.G.5. ;:| .6 Anaraciha-aged 22 years <3a\agbter.i of Shrl Punit Ram Khate, ir^sident of Palaci, Tab. Palari, Sistt. aa-lpur (e.G.). 5. Sbri &iiarnath, aged 19 ysars S/6 Sbri Ptinit Ram Khatei,| resideat of Palarl, Tah.ipalari» ©istt.Raipar (C.G.). y^ >. State of Oihattisgarh througia (C.G.). The collector, Ralpar C00R? S'SES i CGOSS BSU3» ; G.S.Bo. ; CSEtSi IBPBQHEB Bs J.5-00 IInd,A.B.J.,Baloda Bazar . /2882. 15-7-2883. I Mmo p? ,agp,EM*_@NSEB;, ^.BES 43_B.gLE I .(R) G? e.P,.G.. .ISeS Lafca3L_Ls-2—aaaa. XI-HC-22 311^1 ^I feRTgi^i ^41ch -Mf^a ^59 '^WvR, »Ti1'M'IS, (qMltiy A^^l 200 J" 3D^['g^ffW: ^rfOT 12.04.2006 Shri Mt> Sharma.cj • «blllcf<i'l-i 4H<^l'^1^3t tiattriK '" ^? aipgir sii^i bunsel for the appellant. Shri Manoj Paranjajie,counsel for respondent No.l. Shri Ashok Kumar $hukla,counsel for respondent No.2. None for respondei|ts No.3 to 5. Shri Akhil AgrawaljPonel lawyer for respondent No.6/Stcite. Heard on admissiorl Appellant institute^l a suit on 17.07.2002 for declaration and permanent injunction rel^iting to the suit land of survey No.832 area l.202 hectors situated al( village Palari claiming thflri' he is the owner in possession of thesuit lanji and respondents have no rightto interfere in his possession. Respondejnts No.2 to 5 denied the claim on the ground thtrt according to partitio the share of respondent 1 dated 30.10.1994, thesuit land was allofted in Mo.l who was owner and v»as in possession over it, u»ho in the month o-f fmuwy 1996 sold the suit land to respondent No.2.. Thereafter resporjdent No.2 became owner of the suit land and was in its possession. l-1e to respflindents 3 to 5 by4 registered sale deed. Appellant filed an the CPC for grant of ten^ hearing the part'ies held sold some part of the suit land on 06.07.2002 application underOrder XXXIXRule 1 &2 of ipprary injunction. Learned lower Courf, affer that according to partition dated 30.10.1994, the suit Iqnd was allotted^tQ respondent No.l, who soid it to respondent No.2 and theredfl-er, so^ne part of the aiit land has been sold by / .-^.'3^1 XI-HC-22 •3^T'=qTORT!T, d'dl-y'lti, facll^y an^iqn h-i'M sn^i .^-Hi<^ •y^a sn^r'g^iraire •gftg <=bl'4i<rl41Ti.*4HCTl'^ f^^ i^t-^.li ?7 aifSgH 3lls¥l respondent No.2 in favour of resp^ndents No.3 to 5. The suit land was in possession of respondent No.l af^er the sale; itcame in possession of respondent No.2, who transferred respondents No.3 to 5 for considejration arid also delivered possession to them. Therefore, learned lower facie case, balance of convenience of the plaintiff, dismissed the q)p To establish possession o^ revenue records have been filed some part of the suit land in favour of Cburt holding that principle of prima and irreparable lossdo not find favour ication. the qipellant over the suit land no by the appellant. On the contrary, entriesof Khasra panchshala of 2(}01-2002 has been filed by other party which prima facje est-ablishes the suit land. Undisputedly, the suit ossession of respondent No.2 over the id was aricestral property. Appellant qn.d respondent No.l are real brofhers. Admittedly, when the suit land was sold to respondent No.2, in rej/enue record,the land wos in the name of respondent No.l. The mutation at present pending before the Boa^ suit land was recorded in the i records. From Khasra entries of s still under dispute and the dispute is ( •d of Revenue, It is evident that when the suit land was sold to responde^t No.2, at that time,prima facie,the the suit, the a|jpellant wqs not 15. lame of respondent No.l in revenue 2001-2002 it can be inferred thort- in revenue records, prior to sale, th^ entries regarding possession were in the name of respondent No.l and dfter sale, the possession was recorded inthehanieof respondentNo.2.Ttherefore,onthed(rteof institution of ^ossessibn of the^suit land^hence, the Xi-HC-22 sn^r^ii ft'IW 311^1 '*|HT^ 'Hf?a padrrja ^^i£fi. 75[ '^l'>lilvl^, 'STtl'M'IG, Plfll+fy principle pf balance of favour of the appellomt. appreciation of the materi^l, order does hot commit iiny i by this Court. The Miscellaneous dismisspd in-limine and is dcc^drc M.(C.)P.Nos. 427/2006 No.995/2006 stand dispose4 '^rat^Fft^T ^l-Hcff ^^^ ^•^.K i? arfitpT sn^l corjvenience and irreparable loss do not find Learned trial Court, who after minute I, dismissed the'application vide impugned le9ality which may call for any interference Af^peal filed bythe appellant is liable to be dcc^drdingly dismissed. >, 1201/2003, 1202/2003 and IA l°f. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge