IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.305 of 2009 1. RAJENDRA RAI, son of Late Nand Kumar Rai. 2. Suresh Rai, son of Rajendra Rai. Both residents of vill.Basawanapur, P.S.-Gopalpur, Distt.Gopalganj, at present residents of vill.Sonahula Gokhul, P.O.-Sonahula, P.S.-Gopalganj, Distt. Gopalganj. 3. Asha Devi, wife of Shri Shambhu Rai, resident of vill.Chakarwa Khas, P.O. and P.S.- Bhore, Distt. Gopalganj. ----------(Plaintiffs)-Appellants Versus PRADEEP KUMAR RAI, son of Shri Dhrudev Rai, resident of vill.-Sonahula, Gokhul, P.O.- Sonahula Gokhul, P.S.-Gopalpur, Distt.Gopalganj. -----------(Defendant)-Respondent 02. 16.04.2010. (1) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant under Order 41 Rule 11. (2) This Misc. Appeal is directed against the order dt.24.03.2009 passed by Sub Judge IX, Gopalganj in Title Suit No.95 of 2008 whereby the learned Court below has rejected the Injunction Application of the appellant. The plaintiff-appellants filed Title Suit No.95 of 2008claiming the relief that 4 registered sale deeds of 2007 executed by Siyapari Devi in favour of defendant is forged, fabricated, void and the same is not binding upon the plaintiffs, and, therefore, prayed for cancellation of the 4 sale deeds. (3) It is admitted case that the property was inherited by Siyapari Devi from her father and the appellants are husband son and daughter of Siyapari Devi. All the 4 registered sale deeds have been executed by Siyapari Devi and the total consideration amount appears to be Rs.14,57,000/-. It is alleged that the defendants have taken Siyaparti Devi for treatment and they might have taken some thumb 2 impression on papers in absence of the plaintiffs. And by impersonating the sale deeds have been prepared. A separate Injunction application was filed on 18.10.2008 praying for restraining the defendants from making any construction and from transferring the land during the pendency of the suit. A rejoinder application was filed by the defendants. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below has rejected the Injunction Application. (4) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiffs are in possession and are co-sharer with the defendants, therefore, if the defendants are not restrained from making any construction and / or transferring the suit land, the plaintiff shall suffer serious loss, irreparable injury. (5) It is admitted fact that 4 registered sale deeds are in the name of the defendant. There is no specific case made by the plaintiff that the defendant are trying to damage the suit property and a vague statement only made. Likewise regarding selling of the property concerned also, it is only statement made in the Injunction Application that the defendant may sell the property. Except the bare statement in the Injunction Application, there is nothing on record to show that the defendant are trying to transfer to a particular person. Therefore, merely making a vague statement will not entitle the plaintiff to get injunction order. Moreover 4 sale deeds are standing in the name of the defendants and unless the sale deeds are set aside, they will be presumed to be the real owner because it is the case of the plaintiff 3 that Siyapari Devi had inherited the property from her father being the only daughter and said Siyapari Devi had sold the property to the defendant. (6) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below has rightly not found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and balance of convenience also. Therefore, there is no question of serious loss and irreparable injury. Therefore, the finding of the learned Court below is confirmed. (7) In the result, I find no merit in this Misc. Appeal and is accordingly dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)