IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.356 of 2007 MD.IDRISH ANSARI, ---- Appellant. Versus NAGESHWAR SINGH & Ors. --- Respondents. 5 18.12.2008 This appeal is against the order dated 7.05.2007 of the Sub Judge-IX, Sasaram passed in Tital Suit No.475 of 2006, whereunder in a petition filed under Order 9 Rules-1 & 2 CPC, the plaintiff’s prayer for restraining the defendants from making interference with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit land was refused. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for declaration of title and possession over the suit land. The plaintiff’s case was that he purchased 101 decimals of land in plot Nos.362 & 365 from Shek Abdul Jalil and Sh. Akhtar Hussain @ Akhtar Ali vide sale deed dated 18.01.1974, but the further case of the plaintiff was that in the sale deed mistakably 33 decimals in plot No.362 and 44 decimals in plot No.365, total area 77 decimals was only mentioned but the boundary shown in the sale-deed indicated an area of 101 decimals. Plaintiff’s case was further that the 2 defendant Nos.4 & 5 have got their names mutated with respect to 24 decimals of land which belongs to the plaintiff and that on the basis of mutation the defendant Nos.3 & 4 have also transferred 7 decimals of land to defendant Nos.1 & 2 and that the defendants intend to make further transfers, hence, the plaintiff prayed for injucting the defendants from interfering with possession of the plaintiff over the suit land bearing area of 101 decimals. While passing the impugned order the learned court-below examined the matter in detail. It mentioned that in the plaintiff’s sale-deed it was specifically mentioned that 33 decimals was purchased in plot Nos362 and 44 decimals was purchased in plot No.365 and the total area 77 decimals was mentioned twice at page-5 and once at page-6 and again once at page-8 and at the end again at page-10 of the sale- deed. The learned court-below also considered that vide sale-deed No.8914 the plaintiff had himself sold 8 Kathas of land in plot No.365 but the plaintiff had suppressed this fact in his plaint and he had prayed for 3 injunction over entire area of 101 decimals. The learned trial court further considered that in case of any dispute in the area and boundary, the boundary mentioned in the deed has to prevail but when the trial Court considered the boundary of the plaintiff’s land as mentioned in the deed with respect to the map of the land of the concerned Mauja Banauli, the boundary did not tally with the map. The learned court-below also considered that purchasers of 7 decimals of land from the defendant had prayed for mutation of land in their favour and the plaintiff had protested the mutation but despite his protest the mutation was done in favour of the vendees of the defendant Nos.3 & 4. In view of these facts and circumstances, the learned court-below did not find a prima facie case for grant of injunction and a balance of convenience was also not found in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the injunction was refused. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff is in possession of 101 decimals of land. Be that as it may but the defendants had denied 4 this in the W.S. 24 decimals of land stands mutated in the name of defendant Nos.3 & 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff has challenged the mutation of land in favour of defendant Nos.3 & 4 before the Collector, Rohtas under Revision No.76 of 2005-06, which is still pending. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that prima facie the plaintiff has purchased 77 decimals of land only as per the sale-deed in his possession. Thus, hearing both sides I fail to find a prima facie case to grant injunction to the appellant. The balance of convenience is also not found in favour of the appellant. The learned court-below has rightly refused the prayer for injunction. Hence, there is no scope of interference in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)