IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.28 of 2009 CHAUDHARY BHAGENDRA NARAYAN RAY Versus CHAUDHARY ANIRUDH RAY & ORS ----------- 08. 18.05.2010. (1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties under Order 41 Rule 11. (2) The plaintiff-appellant has filed this Misc. Appeal against the order dated 01.12.2008 passed by Su Judge-Ist Benipur in Title Suit No.91 of 2008 whereby the learned Sub Judge allowed the injunction petition filed by the defendant-respondents, 1st party and restrained the appellant from dispossessing / damaging/ alienating the suit property. (3) It appears that the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for setting aside the sale deed dated 12.07.2008 executed by defendant 2nd party in favour of defendant 1st party. (4) Admittedly, the plaintiff is the grand-father of defendant No.1-respodnent No.1. From respondent No.1, the defendant 2nd set-respondents have purchased the suit property on 01.12.2008 for a consideration of Rs.5,75,000/-. (5) According to the plaintiff-appellant, he is the karta of the family and the defendant No.1 has no right to sell the suit property. The defendant 2nd party-respondents never came in possession of the property after purchase. (6) According to the defendants, he purchased the land for construction and when he started construction, the plaintiff threatened to dispossess him and then filed this false suit. The further case of the 2 defendant is that after purchase he came in possession. The defendant purchaser then filed an injunction application alleging that the plaintiff is trying to dispossess him and for that purpose, he may transfer the suit property. The plaintiffs filed show cause alleging that the defendant purchaser never came in possession. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below restrained the appellants from interfering with the possession of the purchaser and also restrained him from damaging or alienating the suit land. (7) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the grand son has no right to sell the coparcenary property without the consent of the other coparcener. Moreover the plaintiff is the karta of the family who is in possession of the suit property and the sale deed is only a paper transaction. The purchaser never came in possession on the basis of sale deed but the learned Court below decided this issue against the plaintiff without their being any evidence and without trial. The finding of the learned Court below is against the principles of law and shall prejudice the appellant in the trial. (8) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the finding is for the purpose of injunction matter only for finding out the prima facie case and it is well settled principals of law that the interlocutory finding never prejudices any party in the trial. (9) It is admitted fact that the purchasers have purchased the suit property from the grand son of the plaintiff who is a member of the joint family. Now, therefore, it cannot be said that the grant son 3 of the plaintiff has got no share. The consideration amount paid by the defendants is Rs.5,75,000/-. Moreover, it is well settled principals of law that possession follows title. The law requires that if consideration is paid and the document is registered then title will pass to the purchasers. Therefore, unless the title of the defendant- purchasers is not divested by setting aside the sale deed, the presumption will be in favour of the defendant-purchaser. Therefore, I find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Court below. (10) In view of the above discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. (11) In the result, this Misc. Appeal is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)