IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.236 of 2011 Jay Ram Singh, Son of Late Ramrup Singh, Resident of Village – Lodia, P.S. – Lakhisarai, District – Lakhisarai. …….. Plaintiff/Appellant Versus 1. Most. Chanda Puri Devi @ Shyama Devi, Wife of Late Ramrup Singh. 2. Sri Vidya Nandan Sharma, Son of Late Ramrup Singh. 3. Sri Gopesh Kumar. 4. Sri Rajesh Kumar Both are sons of Sri Vidya Nandan Sharma, Deft. No. 2. 5. Sri Lachhman Pd. Singh, Son of Late Ramrup Singh. 6. Most. Nirmala Devi, Wife of Late Shree Ram Prasad Singh, At present posted as teacher at village – Daularchak, District – Nawadah. 7. Sri Ramratan Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ramrup Singh. 8. Jay Prakash Kumar @ Prince Kumar @ Guddu, Son Sri Ramratan Singh, Defendant No. 7. 9. Gaurav Kumar @ Suddu Son of Sri Ram Ratan Singh Defendant No. 7. 10. Shri Ramcharitra Singh, Son of Late Ramrup Singh. 11. Sonu Kumar @ Amresh Kumar, minor son of Sri Ramcharitar Singh, u/g/o his father. 12. Vivek Kumar Son of Sri Gopesh Kumar Deft. 3. 13. Bhaiav Kumar Son of Sri Gopesh Kumar, Deft. 3. 14. Vishal Kumar 15. Binay Kumar Minor sons of Sri Gopesh Kumar, Deft. 3, under guardianship of his father. 16. Priyanshu Kumar 17. Sumit Kumar Both are minor sons of Sri Rajesh Kumar Deft. 4 under guardianship of his father as well wisher and next friends. All residents of village – Lodia, P.O. – Damodarpur, P.S. and District – Nawadah. 18. Sri Bipul Kumar, Son of Sri Anirudh Singh, Resident of Village – Bishanpur, P.S. – Sikandra, District – Jamui. ……. ……. Defendants/ Respondents ---------------------------------- 7 14.10.2011 Heard Sri Dhruv Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant on Appeal which has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an Order dated 22.02.2011 passed by Sub- Judge I, Lakhisarai, in Title Suit No. 39 of 2010. By the said Order, learned Court below has rejected the petition filed on 2 behalf of the appellant for ad-interim injunction. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff had filed Title Suit for partition of the joint property and since during the pendency of the Partition Suit the Respondent No. 6 (Defendant No. 6) had sold some land by Registered Sale Deed, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ad-interim injunction. It was submitted that the learned Court below without appreciating the fact that the property was joint, and even then, the Respondent No. 6 had transferred the said land by Registered Sale Deed, has incorrectly, without application of mind, has rejected the petition, and as such, it is necessary to restrain the Respondents/Defendants from further alienating or transferring any suit property. Without issuance of notice to the Respondents, I have perused the impugned order. From the impugned order it appears that main cause for filing of petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 by the plaintiff was transferring of the land by Respondent No. 6 through Registered Sale Deed which was executed on 24.01.2011, obviously during the pendency of the Partition Suit. From the impugned Order it is evident that the land which was transferred by Respondent No. 6 through Registered Sale Deed dated 24.01.2011 was virtually purchased in the year 3 2004 in the joint name of Respondent No. 6 with her husband who subsequently died. It makes it clear that at least prima facie it was not established that the land which was transferred by the Respondent No. 6 was joint property. From the impugned order it further appears that the learned Court below after finding that no prima facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiff/appellant has rightly rejected the petition for ad-interim injunction. I do not find any defect in the impugned order, and accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)