IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.37 of 2006 LAV KUSH SINGH @ VIJAY SINGH & OTHERS Versus ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 10/ 13.08.2008 The order under challenge is dated 20.01.2006 passed in Title Partition Suit No. 111 of 2005 by Sub-Judge-XI, Patna, whereby and whereunder the learned court below has dismissed the petition filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC. It has been prayed that the defendants/respondents be restrained from changing physical feature of the suit land described in Schedule of the plaint and be also restrained from receiving any amount likely to be paid by the Land Acquisition Department and also not to alienate the land by creating any document. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondents. From the arguments and impugned order it would be apparent that the learned court below has found prima facie, case being made out in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. The prayer for injunction has been refused only on the ground that appellant/plaintiffs were not to sustain any irreparable loss. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents/defendants that respondents were not intending to change physical feature of the suit land nor going to negotiate any deal for the purpose of sale of the suit land in future. 2 Respondents have also furnished genealogy and thereby extent of share of the plaintiffs/appellants with plea of pre-partition and thereby allotment of some lands as stated in their W.S. in the court below. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that respondents have received Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs) by way of land acquisition compensation from the Land Acquisition Department and some amount has also been withheld by the Collector so as to facilitate payment of the appellant in case the order is passed by the court. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that appellants are also entitled for compensation from the government and defendants/respondents have already received a huge amount in this regard. Appellants, even assuming argument of the respondents, are entitled share to the extent of 1/9th. Therefore, interest of the appellants should be protected on all counts. So, their future interest should be protected. The appellants may be paid compensation to that extent as it could not be kept in abeyance. The respondents may in case of urgency negotiate some deed in respect of sale of the property after obtaining necessary permission of the court below which will pass order after hearing both the sides. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is accordingly disposed of. 3 Sanjeet (Subash Chandra Jha, J.)