IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.190 of 2007 1. Sunita Devi W/o Birendra Kumar Rajak D/O Late Jaleshwar Baitha, R/O vill. Sripur, P.O. Ekdari, P.S.Chhauradano Dist. East Champaran. ---- Plaintiff/Appellant. Versus 1. Most.Dhuma Devi W/O Late Jaleshwar Baitha, R/O Vill. Bagahi Bhelwa, P.O. Bhelwa, P.S.,Ghora Sahan, Distt. East Champaran. 2. Dhanmanti Devi @ Mangri Devi, W/O Satyadeo Baitha, R/O Vill & P.O. Bakhari, P.S.Patahi, Dist. East Champaran. -----Defendant 1st Respondent 1st set 3 Bhola Baitha S/O Late Kishun Baitha 4. Tarachand Baitha S/O Bali Baitha Both R/O Vill. Bagahi Bhelwa, Tola Ruihata P.O. Bhelwa Circle, P.S.Ghorasahan, Distt. East Champaran. ----- Defendant 2nd set/ Respondent 2nd set. 5. Geeta Devi W/O Narendra Kumar Singh, R/O Vill. Bhagahi Bhelwa Tola- Ruihata, P.O. Bhelwa Circle, P.S. Ghorsahan, Dist. East Champaran. ---- Defendant 3rd Set-Respondent 3rd Set. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Farooq Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent no. 1, 3 & 4: Mr. Umakant Shukla, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondent no.2: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha,Advocate. 11 08.12.2008 This appeal is against the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by Sub-Judge- I, Motihari, in Title Partition Suit No. 306/2006, whereby a petition dated 01.03.2007 was filed for injuncting defendant /respondent no.5 in making any construction over the scheduled 5 lands bearing area 4 Katha 4 Dhurs. The appellant/plaintiff Sunita Devi filed the suit for partition of the suit land bearing area 1 Bigha 19 Katha and 15 Dhurs under the pleadings that the land was in the share of Jaleshwar Baitha, who died leaving behind two wives Paspati Devi and Dhuma Devi and two daughters Sunita Devi (Plaintiff) and Dhanmanti Devi (Defendant no.2). Further case of the plaintiff was that the two widows Paspati Devi and Dhuma Devi sold the 2 entire lands in favour of respondent nos. 3 and 4 by way of executing seven sale deeds. It was further case that respondent no.4 has executed lease for 49 years in favour of respondent no.5 vide lease deed dated 20.12.2005 with respect to 4 Katha and 4 Dhurs of land and that the respondent no.5 is constructing a Petrol Pump over those 4 Katha and 4 Dhurs of land. The plaintiff pleaded that after construction of the Petrol Pump physical features of the land will be changed and it will be difficult after passing of the decree for restoring possession of the land and allotment of shares to the co-sharers as passed the final decree of partition. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent /defendant no.5 has invested much money over the lease land and has got the earth work done and filled the earth and boundary wall has also been constructed. It was submitted that in order to frustrate the construction of the Petrol Pump the prayer for injunction has been made. Learned counsel also argued that the injunction was prayed with respect to the land bearing area 4 Katha 4 Dhurs only. It was submitted that respondents/defendant no.2 Dhanmanti Devi has been arrayed as a defendant by the plaintiff and she did not support the claims of the plaintiff before the trial court. Learned counsel also submitted that the total area of the suit land is 1 Bigha 19 Katha and 15 Dhurs and, thus, the two widows would get 1/3 share in it which would exceed the area of land with respect to which injunction was prayed. It was also 3 submitted that even if the plaintiff succeeds, the area of land which was sold and further leased away may be adjusted in the share of the two widows. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that any case of irreparable loss or balance of convenience is not made out. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there would be change in the physical features of the land. Be that as it may, but the parties will get only the lands in their share. Thus, herein, I fail to find a case of grant of injunction in favour of the appellant. The learned trial court has rightly refused the prayer for injunction. There is no need to make any interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sym ( C.M. Prasad, J.)