IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5266 of 2010 Smt. Fulwati Devi W/O Ram Pravesh Yadav R/O Mohalla- Station Bazar, Barh, P.O. & P.S. Barh, Distt.- Patna Versus 1. Praveen Kumar Shandhwar S/O Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Shandhwar R/O Mohalla- Station Bazar, Barh, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Barh, Distt.- Patna 2. Sangita Shandhwar W/O Praveen Kumar Shandhawar R/O Mohalla- Station Bazar, Barh, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Barh, Distt.- Patna 3. Most. Sharda Sinha W/O Late Rajeshwar Prasad R/O Mohalla- Station Bazar, Barh, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Barh, Distt.- Patna 4. Most. Prem Lata Sinha W/O Late Bhuneshwar Prasad R/O Mohalla- Station Bazar, Barh, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Barh, Distt.- Patna 5. Smt. Prem Lata W/O Pankaj Kumar Shandhwar R/O Mohalla- Station Bazar, Barh, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Barh, Distt.- Patna 6. Pankaj Kumar Sandhwar S/O Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Sandhwar R/O Mohalla- Station Bazar, Barh, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Barh, Distt.- Patna 7. Gyan Prakash Shandhwar S/O Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Sandhwar R/O Mohalla- Station Bazar, Barh, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Barh, Distt.- Patna 8. Smt. Pratibha Verma W/O Anil Kumar Verma And D/O Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahdnwar R/O Mohalla- Chandi, P.S.- Barh, Distt.- Patna, At Present Residing At E/O 175 Janta Nagar, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) 9. Smt. Deepa Sinha W/O Anil Kumar Sinha, D/O Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Sandhwar R/O Mohalla- Chand Chaura Gaya Near Baitarni Talab, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya 10. Most. Madhuri Sinha W/O Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha And D/O Late Rejeshwar Prasad Sandhwar R/O Mohalla- Kadamkuan, Patna, Near Budh Murti, P.S.- Kadamkuan, Distt.- Patna ----------- 3 26.07.2011 Heard Mr. J.P. Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, IIIrd Barh in Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2008 affirming the order dated 22.04.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge, Barh in Title Suit No. 91 of 2006 whereby the directions were issued to the parties to maintain status quo. The facts of the matter in brief is that the plaintiff and the defendants other than the petitioner herein, find their common ancestor in Ishwar Dayal who had three sons namely, Rajeshwar Prasad, Sidheshwar Prasad and Bhuneshwar Prasad. The ancestral property, 2 according to the plaintiff was amicably partitioned between the brothers on oral understanding. The present issue relates to the property partitioned in the name of Rajeshwar Prasad. The said Rajeshwar Prasad had two wives. The first wife was Tara Devi who was survived by daughter Madhuri Sinha whereas the second wife Sarda Devi died issueless. Late Sarda Devi by two sale deeds sold 15 dhurs and 13 dhurkies of land in favour of Prem Lata the wife of Pankaj Kumar Sandhwar falling in the chain of descendants of the third brother Bhuneshwar Prasad Sandhwar. Prem Lata wife of Pankaj Kumar Sandhwar by the impugned sale deed transferred 2 katha 15 dhurs of Survey Plot No. 557 in favour of the present petitioner. It is admitted that the present petitioner does not fall within the geneological table of late Ishwar Dayal, as fully described in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. It is at this stage that the title suit was filed invoking the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act seeking pre-emption over sale deed made by the Prem Lata in favour of the present petitioner and in the alternative for partition of the suit property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the property in question was yet to be divided by metes and bounds and in which view the sale could not have been affected by Prem Lata without offering the said plot of land in favour of the plaintiffs. As certain constructions were being carried out by the purchaser i.e. present petitioner over the plot in question, a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff seeking restraint over the present petitioner from making any alterations over the suit property. The Sub Judge-1, Barh 3 vide order passed on 22.04.2008 in Title Suit No. 91 of 2006 directed for maintenance of status quo by the contesting parties until the disposal of the suit. The petitioner filed an appeal giving rise to Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2008 and which was also rejected vide order dated 12.08.2009 by the Additional District Judge, IIIrd Barh giving rise to the present writ petition. Learned court below have refused to interfere with the order of status quo inter alia on grounds that the suit raised mixed questions of law and facts as to whether there was a formal partition by metes and bounds amongst the descendants of late Ishwar Dayal and which could only be done in the course of trial. It was also noted that the petitioner is a stranger to the family and it is in this background that the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff invoking the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act seeking right of pre-emption. That being the position, I find no infirmity with the orders impugned. The writ petition is dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)