Family Land Dispute: Patna HC Upholds Injunction Denial, Says Plaintiff Who Went Years Without One Can Wait Longer

The petitioner, plaintiff in Title Suit No. 1 of 2009, challenged the rejection of his application for an ad-interim injunction and the appellate court’s decision affirming that rejection.

The lower courts found that the petitioner had not established possession or a prima facie case, while the defendants’ claim rested on a registered gift deed.

The petitioner argued that the suit property was joint property and relied on earlier litigation involving his father.

The High Court considered the challenge to the concurrent refusals of injunctive relief.

An injunction requires the applicant to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable loss.

The High Court will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts on an injunction application unless the findings are perverse or disclose a manifest error of record or apparent illegality.

The Court relied on Prakash Harishchandra Muranjan v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, (2009) 3 SCC 432, which declined interference with concurrent refusals of injunction absent perversity.

The petitioner’s claims of joint ownership and the effect of earlier litigation raised disputed questions for determination in the pending title suit, but he produced no significant material establishing entitlement to interim relief.

In light of the lower courts’ findings on possession and the defendants’ registered gift deed, the High Court found no basis to disturb their assessment of the injunction requirements.

It also found no perversity, manifest error, or apparent illegality warranting supervisory interference with the concurrent orders.

The petitioner’s substantive claims remained for adjudication in the pending title suit.