ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-9-99 in Civil Suit No. 66-A/99 by VIIth Additional District Judge, Bhopal, allowing the application of plaintiff/respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and granting temporary injunction against the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 not to interfere in the possession of the suit land of plaintiff/respondent.
2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is admittedly the Patta holder of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 8/2 area 5 acres situated at Village Mungalia, Patwari Halka No. 12, Tahsil Hujur, District Bhopal. The defendant No. 1 claimed to have purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 9-9-98 from appellant/defendant No. 2.
3. The defendant/appellant No. 2 had averred that he had obtained a ‘Muktarnama’ on-1-4-97 from plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and thereafter an agreement to sale was got executed. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 denied to have executed the said documents.
4. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants/appellants as well as State of Madhya Pradesh-respondent No. 2 herein. He also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, praying that appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2 be restrained from interfering in his possession over the suit land.
5. The learned Trial Court allowed the application by the impugned order holding that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 prima facie appears to be in possession of the suit land and that he could not be dis-possessed there from, otherwise than in due course of law. The appellants feeling aggrieved by the above order of temporary injunction filed this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for appellants submits that the defendant No. 1 is the purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration from appellant/defendant No. 2. He also obtained possession of the suit land from defendant No. 2. It has also been submitted that the name of appellant/defendant No. 1 has been mutated in the revenue records and that he is in exclusive possession thereof. It has therefore been submitted by the learned counsel for
appellants that the order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was not justified.
7. It is noticed that the learned Trial Court has held that there is no averment by the defendants/appellants that the possession of the suit land was ever handed over by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 to appellant/defendant No. 2. Therefore, the sale of the suit land by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 and their contention that the possession was ever handed over to the defendant No. 1 by defendant No. 2 could not be prima facie accepted. It has also been observed that the transaction as alleged by defendant No. 2 between the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and appellant/defendant No. 2 was not free from suspicion. Further, it has also been observed that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is a member of Scheduled Caste and his land could not be alienated in view of the bar under Section 165(7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, without permission of the Collector. The State of Madhya Pradesh-respondent No. 2 herein has also in its reply in the Trial Court had averred that the transaction was hit by the bar as above.
8. In view of above, the question whether the defendant/appellant No. 2 had right, title or interest to transfer the property in favour of appellant/defendant No. 1, is a litigatable question to be determined on merits after the trial of the suit.
9. Moreover, there being no material to hold that the defendant/appellant No. 2 obtained possession of the suit land from plaintiff/respondent No. 1, the averment by defendant No. 2 that he had handed over possession to defendant No. 1 could not be of any assistance to defendants/appellants.
10. Since, the finding of learned Trial Court is that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is in possession of suit land and the alleged transaction of sale by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 prima facie did not confer any title on defendant No. 1, the order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was proper. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court in granting the temporary injunction is judicious and is based on proper appreciation of material facts and evidence on record. No interference therein ‘ is called for.
11. This appeal has no merit and is therefore dismissed without notice to the other side.
12. Misc. Appeal dismissed.