Section 52 lis pendens obviates injunction restraining alienation during pending title litigation.

The petitioner, Dwarika Prasad Sahu, instituted Civil Suit No. 06A/2025 seeking declaration of title and possession, cancellation of a gift deed dated 19 March 2019, cancellation of consequential mutation orders, and permanent injunction concerning agricultural land measuring approximately 1.73 hectares.

The gift deed had been executed by the petitioner’s father, Alakh Ram, in favour of the petitioner’s son, Lokeshwar Prasad Sahu, and the petitioner’s other son, Rupeshwar, who was the husband of respondent No. 2, Minakshi Sahu.

Alakh Ram died on 27 May 2020, while Rupeshwar died on 7 October 2023. Thereafter, mutation proceedings led the petitioner to challenge the gift deed as forged and fabricated.

The petitioner sought a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, restraining the respondents from alienating or creating third-party rights in the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gunderdehi, rejected the application on 17 April 2026, and the Principal District Judge, Balod, dismissed the petitioner’s miscellaneous appeal on 25 August 2026.

The petitioner consequently invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining the respondents from alienating or creating third-party rights in the suit property pending adjudication of the civil suit?

Whether the concurrent orders of the trial court and appellate court rejecting temporary injunction disclosed perversity, jurisdictional error, or a grave failure of justice warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, under which temporary injunction requires establishment of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury.

It further applied Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, embodying the doctrine of lis pendens, holding that transfers made during the pendency of litigation concerning immovable property remain subject to the result of the suit and therefore did not require a separate injunction in the circumstances of the case.

Regarding Article 227, the Court relied on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 (8) SCC 329, and the principles extracted from Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, holding that supervisory jurisdiction is limited to keeping subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and may be exercised only in cases of patent perversity, manifest jurisdictional error, gross failure of justice, or violation of natural justice; the High Court cannot act as an appellate court or merely substitute another possible view.

The High Court noted that the petitioner’s challenge concerned a gift deed executed by the grandfather in favour of his grandsons, who were closely related to the petitioner and were not strangers to the transaction.

The petitioner’s request to restrain alienation during the suit was held to be covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, since any alienation during the litigation would remain subject to the final outcome of the suit.

The trial court and appellate court had concurrently found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss.

The High Court found that these conclusions were based on the pleadings and facts and did not demonstrate perversity or jurisdictional error.

Since Article 227 does not permit reappreciation of evidence or correction of a merely possible factual or legal view, no supervisory interference was warranted.

It further held that the concurrent orders of the subordinate courts contained no perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.