IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.306 of 2008 BABY DEVI Versus RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS ----------- 4. 21.11.2008 The appellant/plaintiff Baby Devi had filed a suit for partition against her sisters, mother and cousins. In the suit Rambilas Mahto was stated to be common ancestor having two sons Ramdeo Singh and Saryu Singh and the plaintiff who is the daughter of Ramdeo Singh who including the plaintiff had five daughters only. Saryu Singh had two sons as per genealogy at the foot of the plaint. In the suit land belonging to the common ancestor Rambilas Mahto the plaintiff demanded 1/12 share in the plaint. The plaintiff stated that particularly defendant no.4 Chinta Devi, sister of the plaintiff had sold suit properties and that the suit properties was in danger of further alienation, therefore, a prayer was made for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating of the suit properties. The plaintiff pleaded that Saryu Singh and Ramdeo Singh both were joint and on this ground a share of 1/12 was claimed in the suit properties. The defendants had filed W.S. and they took stand that Saryu Singh and Ramdeo Singh had already separated by partition between them and in support of this stands the defendant no.4 also mentioned in the W.S. that Rambilas Mahto had sold 1 katha 5 dhurs of land under plot no.184 to defendant no.4 through registered sale deed dated 18.11.1987. The defendants took stand that by consent between descendants of Ramdeo Singh which include his five daughters and wife the property of Ramdeo Singh which was in - 2 - possession of the wife she made appropriate apportionment of the property to the daughters i.e. the plaintiff and defendants by way of gift and they were also put in possession of those gifted properties. The defendants took the stand that the plaintiff, in order to disturb peaceful enjoyment of the possession over the properties of the defendants, filed this suit. In the counter affidavit which was filed in reply to the memo of appeal registered deed of gift of lands as made by the plaintiff’s mother in her favour has been filed vide Annexure- A, B and C which also include sale deed executed by the plaintiff herself in support of the lands which she had acquired under gift from her mother/defendant under Annexure-A. Thus, Annexure- B and C indicate about the alienation of lands at the hands of the plaintiff herself for considerable consideration. The plaintiff sought injunction on the ground that the defendant no.4 was alienating the suit properties and thus there was danger of wastage and damage to the interest of the plaintiff’s claim. But in view of Annexure- A, B and C it is evident that the plaintiff herself went on selling portion of the suit properties but the same fact was never admitted in the plaint rather the plaintiff in para-4 of the plaint went to the extent of pleading that the deed of gift executed by mother (defendant no.3) in favour of the plaintiff was without her knowledge, inoperative and not acceptable. It is strange that on one hand the plaintiff makes this statement and on the other hand she sales away lands by sale deed to different persons with clear averment that she had got the land through gift from her mother. - 3 - In such view of the matters, I do not find it a fit case indicating any prima facie case for grant of injunction or indicating any balance of inconvenience or irreparable loss in favor of the plaintiff. The learned court below has rightly refused the prayer for injunction. Thus there being no merit in this appeal, the same stands dismissed. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-