Guljar Singh vs Sarjeet Singh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32304
1 MP-6326-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6326 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030283002026
GULJAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
SARJEET SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Girija Shankar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by
the Second District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind, in MCA No.53 of 2025,
whereby the learned appellate Court has reversed the order dated 12.07.2025
passed by the Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gohad, in Civil Suit
No.158-A of 2025 and, while partly allowing the application filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, has
restrained the petitioners from alienating the suit property during the
pendency of the suit.
2. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction, inter alia, alleging that the proceedings for partition of
the suit land were initiated by petitioners without impleading the necessary
parties. It is further alleged that, in collusion with the Halka Patwari and the
Naib Tehsildar, an order of partition was passed and, on the basis of the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:40:05 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32304
2 MP-6326-2026
order, their names were mutated in the revenue records. The plaintiffs have

averred that the suit property is jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the
defendants and that they have their respective shares therein. The order of
partition passed by the Naib Tehsildar has been alleged to be illegal.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the suit property is
jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants and a declaration of their
respective shares therein. They have also sought a declaration that the
partition order dated 02.05.2025 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Gohad, is null
and void, along with a decree of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants/petitioners from alienating the suit property during the pendency
of the suit.
3. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, seeking a temporary injunction
restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring the suit property to
any third party during pendency of the suit.
4. The defendants filed their written statement and opposed the prayer
for grant of temporary injunction by filing reply to the application. The
learned trial Court, vide order dated 12.07.2025, rejected the application filed
by the respondents/plaintiffs. The trial Court relied upon the mutation entries
made in the revenue records pursuant to the order passed by the Naib
Tehsildar and concluded that the possession of the parties could be presumed
on the basis of the mutation entries. The Court also observed that the
plaintiffs had failed to bring on record any document to establish that the
property was jointly owned. Thus, finding no prima facie case in favour of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:40:05 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32304
3 MP-6326-2026
the plaintiffs, the application was rejected.

5. The respondents/plaintiffs challenged the order passed by the trial
Court by filing a miscellaneous appeal. The appeal was allowed by the
learned appellate Court, which restrained the petitioners from alienating or
transferring the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The petitioners
have, therefore, approached this Court challenging the order passed by the
learned appellate Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, under the garb of
impugned order of temporary injunction, the respondents may attempt to
interfere with their possession over the suit property. It was further submitted
that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application, as no prima facie
case found in plaintiffs' favour. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for
interference.
7. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to
refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji
Trust (Regd.) v. Baldev Dass, reported in (2004)8 SCC 488, wherein the
Apex Court held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:
"10. Be that as it may, Mr. Sachar is right in contending that
unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out
by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the
property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer
of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to
the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to
multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case no such case of
irreparable loss is made out except contending that the legal
proceedings are likely to take a long time, therefore, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:40:05 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32304
4 MP-6326-2026
respondent should be permitted to put the scheduled property to
better use. We do not think in the facts and circumstances of this
case, the lower appellate court and the High Court were justified
in permitting the respondent to change the nature of the property
by putting up construction as also by permitting the alienation of
the property, whatever may be the conditions on which the same is
done. In the event of the appellant's claim being found baseless
ultimately, it is always open to the respondent to claim damages
or, in an appropriate case, the court may itself award damages for
the loss suffered, if any, in this regard. Since the facts of this case
do not make out any extraordinary ground for permitting the
respondent to put up construction and alienate the same, we think
both the courts below, namely, the lower appellate court and the
High Court erred in making the impugned orders. The said orders
are set aside and the order of the trial court is restored."

8. The plaintiffs have averred that the property is jointly owned. They
have also challenged the partition order passed by the Naib Tehsildar. The
trial Court, therefore, erred in relying upon the mutation entries made
pursuant to the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar while rejecting the
application.
9. It is well settled in law that, while deciding an application for grant
of temporary injunction, the trial Court is required to prima facie examine
whether the plaintiff has raised a triable issue. The expression "prima facie
case" does not mean that the plaintiff must establish a foolproof case at this
stage. If the property is alienated or disposed of in any manner, the same
would frustrate the purpose of filing the suit and may also give rise to
multiplicity of litigation. Further, no irreparable hardship would be caused to
the defendants if they are restrained from alienating the property.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:40:05 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32304
5 MP-6326-2026
10. The apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioners

that, under the garb of the impugned order, the respondents/plaintiffs may
interfere with the petitioners' possession is wholly unfounded. The learned
appellate Court has granted injunction only against alienation of the suit
property and has not passed any order affecting the possession of the parties.
If the respondents interfere with the petitioners' possession over the suit
property, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application in this
regard before the trial Court.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the learned
appellate Court is found to be just and proper and advances the interest of
justice, warranting no interference in this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld, and the
petition is dismissed accordingly.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 10/26/2026
10:40:05 AM