IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.189 of 2007 SMT.PARMILA SINHA & ORS Versus SMT.SUNITA SINGH & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Nath Tiwary,Adv. Mr. Upendra Kishra, Adv. For the respondents: Mr. Ram Suresh Ray, Sr.Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv. --------------- 6. 19.12.2008 This appeal is against the order dated 16.3.2007 of Civil Judge-I, Nawadah passed in Partition Suit No.68 of 2006 whereby in a petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent, the defendant/appellant have been restrained from alienating any portion of the suit land and the Court also passed a further order restraining the plaintiff also from alienating the suit land with a rider that if any lawful necessity arose either of the parties may sell any portion of the suit property with the permission of the Court. The case of the plaintiff/respondent was that Krishan Prasad Singh had two wives, namely, Urmila Sinha and Pramila Sinha. The plaintiff claimed to be the daughters of Urmila Sinha, the first wife, defendant No.1 is the second wife Parmila Sinha and defendant no.2 to 5 are the daughters of the defendant no.1. The plaintiff’s case was further that the plaintiff intended to alienate house and other properties situated in Patna town and other places and Rs.9000/- was received as rent by the defendant No.1 and usufruct of other properties were also received by her. Plaintiff’s case was that Krishna Prasad Singh died and his retiral benefits were also drawn by the defendant - 2 - No.1. The plaintiff claimed that they were feeling difficulty in enjoying the usufruct of the properties and there was also a risk of the alienation of the suit properties at the hands of the defendants, therefore, a petition praying for injuncting defendants from alienating the suit property was filed. The defendant’s case was that the two plaintiffs were not the daughters of the Krishna Prasad Singh but they were the daughters of Vijay Singh, brother of Krishna Prasad Singh and thus according to the defendant the plaintiffs had no share or interest in the suit properties. On hearing both sides, the learned court below found a prima facie case as well as balance of convenience in favour of granting injunction order and accordingly the injunction was passed. But the court below restrained both sides from alienating the suit land with a rider that if any of the parties required for any kind of alienation they may do so with the permission of the Court. During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that there was no need for passing any restrain order in this case against the defendant/appellant and it was also argued that the Court went beyond its jurisdiction in restraining the plaintiff also. The court below has restrained the plaintiff also, but plaintiff is not making any grievance over it, therefore, the defendants/plaintiffs do not appear to have much scope for making any grievance in the matter. So far the question for restraining the appellants/defendants are concerned, according to the case of the plaintiff the defendants are receiving rent of rented flats as well as usufruct of the other properties and they have - 3 - also taken retiral benefits of Krishna Prasad Singh, but there was risk of alienation of the immovable properties and in case the properties were alienated the interest of the plaintiff would have been seriously jeopardized. In such view of the matters, the court below rightly restrained the defendants from alienating the suit properties. The impugned order of the court below shows that the Court was very cautious about the interest of both the sides, therefore, the plaintiffs were also restrained and the Court passed an order that neither of the parties could dispose of nor alienate any part of the suit property without prior permission of the Court. The order of the court below is proper and justified and there is no scope for any interference. The appeals fail, and the same is dismissed. Ravi/- (C.M. Prasad, J.)