IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.230 of 2009 CHANDESHWAR CHOUBEY@CHANDESHWAR NATH CHOUBEY & ORS Versus CHAMPA RANI PANDEY & ANR ----------- 2 6/5/2009 Heard counsel for the appellants. Being aggrieved by order granting injunction, the defendants-appellants have only made a limited grievance before this Court through their counsel that they are staying at Allahabad and have disposed of only their share of land and therefore the impugned order of injunction passed by the court below would adversely affect the interest of their vendees. In this context learned counsel had also referred to certain development which had taken place on account of consolidation proceeding. In the opinion of this Court, grievance of the appellant seems to be wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the Court below has found that both the plaintiff-respondents and the defendant- appellants had got land in question by virtue of a deed of gift from their mother and had equal share. It is on this basis of an admitted document that the court below has found prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Obviously, if the share of plaintiffs was in any way going to be affected in pursuance of a sale effected during the pendency of suit by the defendant- appellants, balance of convenience was in favour of plaintiffs and irreparable loss was caused to them. Moreover the impugned order of injunction issued to the extent that the defendant-appellant or her vendees should not go over the land of the plaintiff- 2 respondents or make any effort to disturb their possession with regard to their share of land only cannot be said to be in any manner either prejudicial to the interest of the defendant- appellants or their vendees. If the defendant-appellants are so sure that they have not touched upon the share of half of the portion of the land of the plaintiff-respondents, and have not alienated the same they will not have any adverse impact in relation to their share of land but on the other hand, if one sister tried to displace the share of other sister, the impugned order of injunction only protects other sisters, i.e, plaintiff-appellants to only that extent. In that view of the matter, apprehension of the defendant-appellant as against possible misuse of the order of injunction by the plaintiff-Respondents seems to be wholly misconceived. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff- Respondents and therefore, this appeal, with the aforementioned observations , must be and is hereby dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)