IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.345 of 2008 RAJ KUMAR SINGH & ANR . Versus UMRAWATI DEVI & ORS . ----------- 8 9.3.2010 Heard counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.8 to 16. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a Title Suit No.79 of 1989 for declaring that the family arrangement deed dated 30.7.1984 is forged and fabricated and voidable document and is not binding on the plaintiffs as they were not party in the aforesaid arrangement. The appellants and respondent nos.1 to 7 are descendants to the family of late Govind Singh. The aforesaid Govind Singh had three sons namely Basudeo Singh, Kapildeo Singh and Kamla Singh and one daughter Umrawati Devi, who was defendant no.1 in the suit. The case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that the family arrangement deed admittedly did not bear their signature whereas the case of the defendants in the Title Suit is that the interest of the plaintiff- appellants were fully represented by their elder brother Kunwar Singh who represented them as the Karta of their family. Thus, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs- appellants cannot deny or dispute the family arrangement deed as their interest was fully represented by their brother Kunwar Singh who admittedly has signed on the family arrangement deed.. Kunwar Singh and Krishna Kant Singh in their written statement in suit stated that they were forced to put their signature on the family deed arrangement. 2 For the present, this court is not going into the dispute whether Kunwar Singh and Krishna Kant Singh voluntarily signed the family arrangement deed or were forced to put their signature on it. The matter is left untouched to be decided in the appeal which is pending before the Appellate Court. The further case of the appellants is that on the basis of the family arrangement deed, defendant no.1 sold some of the properties to the outsiders and even during the pendency of the suit some of the properties has already been sold out, as a result the purchasers had also to be made parties in the suit. The plaintiffs filed injunction petition in the trial court which by its order dated 6.1.2007 granted status quo. However, the trial court by order dated 28.12.2006 dismissed the suit holding the same is hit by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and also section 4(C) of the Consolidation Act. The appellants preferred appeal being T.S. No.2 of 2007 in which an injunction petition filed by them was rejected by order dated 28.6.2008 which led to the filing of the instant appeal. The appellants state that they would suffer irreparable loss if the status quo order is not granted as the respondents are alienating properties and dismantling some of the properties and collecting rentals etc. They further submit that the impugned order dated 28.6.2008 rejecting application of injunction is bad in law as the court did not go into the issue whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case or the balance of convenience was in their favour. The Appellate Court did not consider the issue of irreparable loss if the status quo order is not granted. 3 KHAN Counsel for the defendants-respondents state that they had purchased some of the properties even prior to the filing of the suit. They had started construction after taking loan from the Banks on interest. Having heard counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, this court finds that the appellate court while deciding the issue of injunction merely discussed some of the case laws but did not go into the issue whether the appellants have prima facie case or in whose favour the balance of convenience lies. In fact, no discussion on these points has been made by the appellate court. As such, the impugned order dated 28.6.2008 passed in T.A.No.2 of 2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Appellate Court to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till decision on injunction matter in appeal, the parties would not alienate, transfer or dismantle the properties. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. (S.P.Singh,J)