IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.737 of 2008 PREM KUMAR @ PREM KUMAR SINGH Versus CHANDESHWAR RAI & ORS. For the appellant: Mr.Ratna Deep Prasad, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. ----------- 6 23.4.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 under Order 41 rule 11 C.P.C. 2. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff appellant against the order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the learned Sub Judge IXth, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No.385 of 2007 whereby the learned court below has rejected the plaintiff’s application for injunction under Order 39 rule 1 C.P.C. 4. The plaintiff appellant filed the aforesaid Title Suit No.385/07 for declaration that the sale deed dated 21.5.2007 executed by the defendant respondents 2nd set, i.e., respondent no.4 in favour of the respondents no.1,2 and 3 is illegal and void on the ground that the respondent no.4 has sold the land in excess of his share. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the purchasers are now taking steps to sell the same to third person and, therefore, the appellant filed the injunction application but the learned court below has wrongly rejected the 2 same. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have purchased the suit land from rightful owner and they are in possession. According to the learned counsel after partition the respondent no.4 was allotted his share and out of his share he had sold the property. 7. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has considered various documents executed by the plaintiff appellant himself of the year 1991, 1993 and 2004 whereby the plaintiff himself has sold many properties and in those sale deeds it has been mentioned by him that through amicable partition he got exclusive right and title on the lands. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances that the plaintiffs himself admitted in the sale deeds executed by him that there had been partition between the parties and it is not the case that the vendor of the respondents no.1,2 and 3 had no title and moreover, in the injunction application only a vague statement has been made that they are trying to sell the property. I, therefore, find that the plaintiff has got no prima facie case and, therefore, the learned court below has rightly rejected the injunction application. 9. In the result, I find no merit in this Misc. Appeal 3 and, accordingly, it is dismissed. AnilKr.Sinha ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J )