MP HC Upholds Temporary Transfer Ban On Disputed Land After Plaintiffs Allege Partition Proceeded Without Necessary Parties

The plaintiffs sued for declarations that the suit land was jointly owned and that a partition order dated 2 May 2025, passed by the Naib Tehsildar, was void; they also sought a permanent injunction against alienation.

They alleged that partition proceedings had been conducted without necessary parties and that the resulting revenue mutations were based on an illegal order.

The trial court rejected their application for temporary injunction, relying on the mutation entries and finding no prima facie case.

On appeal, the Second District Judge reversed that decision and restrained the defendants from alienating or transferring the property during the suit.

The defendants challenged the appellate order under Article 227.

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, temporary injunctive relief may be granted where the plaintiff raises a triable issue; a prima facie case does not require proof of a complete or conclusive case at the interim stage.

In Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) v. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488, the Supreme Court held that, absent an adequate basis to permit a change in the nature of the property, courts should ordinarily prevent alienation or transfer that could cause loss to the party ultimately succeeding or lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was invoked to review the appellate order.

The plaintiffs’ claims of joint ownership and their challenge to the partition order raised a triable issue.

The trial court therefore erred in treating mutations made pursuant to that challenged order as sufficient grounds to reject interim relief.

Alienation could frustrate the suit and generate further litigation, whereas restraining alienation would not cause irreparable hardship to the defendants.

The appellate order was limited to alienation and did not affect possession; any interference with the defendants’ possession could be addressed by an application before the trial court.

The petition was dismissed, and the appellate order was upheld.