IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.792 of 2010 1. RAM ASHISH SINGH, 2. Jai Ram Singh, Both sons of Sri Kishun Singh, Resident of Village Dihara, P.S. Ajimbad, District-Bhojpur, present resides at Pakari West Gumati, P.S. Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur. ………Plaintiffs/ Appellants. Versus 1. BIJENDRA KUMAR SINGH, 2. Lakshuman Singh, Both sons of Parash Nath Singh, Residents of Village- Ranni, P.S. –Pawana, P.O.- Ranni, District-Bhojpur. ……….Defendants/Respondents. ----------- 5 18.11.2010 This petition has been filed against the order dated 13.7.2010 passed by the Sub-Judge-V, Ara in Title Suit No. 11 of 2010 by which the petition for injunction has been rejected. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs is that in the old Khata No. 520, Plot No. 1355 area One Katha 3 Dhur 7 Dhurki, which having new Khata No. 786, New Plot No. 4728 belonged to Sampat Ahir and the said disputed land was sold by Chattu Ahir to one Ram Bahadur Yadav in the year 1978. From the owner of land Ram Bahadur Yadav the plaintiffs had purchased the land in the year 2003 and came in possession the rent of the land is also being paid. The further case of plaintiff is that defendants have prepared forged and fabricated sale deed. With regard to the statement and has further asserted that the defendants along with his associates has attached and demolish the structure. The case of the defendants/respondents is that Devraj Ahir the only son of Sampat Ahir has sold disputed land in the 2 year 1997 to Ram Sawari Kuwar and after the death of Ram Sawari Kuwar the said land came in possession of his five sons who sold 15 dhur of land in the year 2001. And lastly Sampat Ahir is grandfather of Chattu Ahir had his son Devraj Ahir after sale by Devraj Chattu Ahir had no authority to sale the land. The supplementary affidavit has also been filed, which is on the record. Considering the respective cases of the parties and taking consideration held that there is a prima facie case but balance of convenience is in favour of defendants as the Survey Khatiyan is in his name mutation is also in is name and have no irreparable loss to defendant in rejecting the petition for injunction. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Khatiyan alleged to have been prepared in the name of defendant is not final and further that he has constructed a structure over the suit land which is being disturbed and has filed the petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain physical feature. However there is no report of Pleader Commissioner that any structure is standing on the suit land and both the parties claims to be in possession here. Under the facts and circumstances except mere assertion and nothing to show irreparable loss, hence I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order. However, the appellant may have liberty to file the petition for injunction for maintenance of status quo if the structure found in Pleader 3 Commissioner report there. Under the circumstances this appeal is disposed off with above observations. And this petition is disposed of. Bhardwaj ( Gopal Prasad, J.)