====================================================== Sri Randhir Kumar Singh @ Sri Rajive Ranjan, S/O Late Dilip Kumar Singh v. 1
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.147 of 2013 ====================================================== Sri Randhir Kumar Singh @ Sri Rajive Ranjan, S/O Late Dilip Kumar Singh, R/O Mauja - Nadma, P.S. Barh, District - Patna, at present residing at MIG-89, Hanuman Nagar, near Pani Tanki, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna – 20. ....Plaintiff .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Smt. Dehuti Sinha, W/O Late Dilip Kumar Singh. 2. Sri Rahul Kumar, S/O Late Dilip Kumar Singh. Both are R/O Mauja - Nadma, P.S. Barh, District- Patna, presently resident of Morya Path, Khajpura, opposite Vishal Plaza, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Town and District – Patna-14. ……… Defendant 1st Party….Respondent 1st Party. 3. Smt. Ranjana Kumari, W/O Sri Kartika Kumar, R/O Mauza - Shivhar, P.S. Mokama, District – Patna. …….Defendant 2nd Party….Respondent 2nd Party. 4. Smt. Pratima Devi, W/O Sri Trishuldhari Singh, R/O - Mauza - Narsinghpur, P.S. Barbigha, District – Sheikhpura. …..Defendant 3rd Party.........Respondent 3rd Party. 5. Sri Anant Kumar Singh, S/O Late Chandradeep Singh, R/O - Mauza - Nadma, P.S. Barh, District - Patna, presently residing at Mal Road No.1, P.S. - Secretariat, Town and District - Patna – 1. …..Defendant 4th Party…… Respondent 4th Party. 6. Ramavtar Agrawal, S/O Late Bansidhar Agarwal, R/O 24/30, Marg Federation House 5th Floor, Mumbai - 400 002. .... Defendant 5th Party .... Respondent 5th Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma. For Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma. For Respondent Nos.3 to 5: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Madhusudan Sharma and Mr. Manish Kumar No.2 Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 6 19-08-2013 This appeal under Order 43 rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟) is directed against the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the learned Sub- Judge 1st, Patna in Title Partition Suit No.181 of 2012, whereby the trial court has rejected the prayer for temporary injunction Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 2 prayed by the appellant as plaintiff in the court below under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code. I shall be referring to the status of the parties as existing before the trial court for the sake of convenience. The Title Partition Suit No.181 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff with the following reliefs: (a) That on adjudication a preliminary decree of partition of half share of the plaintiff out of the share in suit property mentioned in the sale deeds in the name of late Dilip Kumar Singh and Dehuti Sinha and Rahul Kumar be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant 1st Party. (b) That if the court finds the exchange deed valid then the plaintiff‟s share be carved out in proportion to relief no. „a‟ so granted. (c) That on grant of relief no. (a) Survey Knowing Advocate Commissioner be appointed to carve out separately out of the suit properties standing in the name of late Dilip Kumar Singh and Dehuti Sinha
Facts
and Rahul Kumar, the defendant no.1st party and out of which separate Takhta of 50% of the plaintiff be carved out and delivery of possession Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 3 be effected through due processes of the court. (d) That cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant 1st set. (e) That any other relief or reliefs be awarded to the plaintiff of which the plaintiff is found entitled. The suit property is a compact block of 32 kathas of land situated at Fraser Road, P.S. - Kotwali, District- Patna. The copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal and the family genealogy given at the foot of the plaint manifests that the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1, 2 and 5 belong to a joint Hindu family. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff, late Dilip Kumar Singh is the own brother of respondent no.5, Anant Kumar Singh. Late Dilip Kumar Singh had married twice. His first wife was Rajeshwari Devi who died in 1982 and three children were born from the wedlock, namely, Nilu Kumari, Nitu Kumari and Randhir Kumar Singh, the plaintiff. Dilip Kumar Singh again got married to respondent no.1, Dehuti Sinha and two children were born from the wedlock, namely, Sapna Kumari and Rahul Kumar. Respondent no.5, Anant Kumar Singh is the own uncle of the plaintiff. The suit is thus against the step mother, the step brother and the own uncle of the plaintiff apart from the other Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 4 defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father Dilip Kumar Singh had purchased several properties in his own name as well as in the name of defendant nos.1, 3 and 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of his father, his step mother, defendant no.1 in a bid to grab the entire property got a sale- deed executed on 18.1.2010 by applying force and that the plaintiff all the while was confined within the premises of the Registration office. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was also forced to sign certain blank papers and it was only later on that he became aware that a sale-deed had been executed in relation to the Patna property on 18.1.2010. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he was forced to sign on a deed of exchange which was also dated 18.1.2010 and related to the property of respondent no.6, Ramavtar Agrawal which is mentioned in Schedule-II to the plaint. The plaintiff thus setting up a claim of half share in the suit property on the basis that the same had been acquired from the funds of his father late Dilip Kumar Singh, instituted the suit in question for the reliefs as set out hereinabove. Subsequently an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code read with Section 151 thereof was filed on Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 5 behalf of the plaintiff with a prayer to restrain the defendants from selling, alienating, encumbering and in any manner changing the nature, configuration, topography and status of the suit property which was filed on 28.6.2012. The application containing the prayer for injunction was followed by another application praying for expeditious hearing of the injunction application. The learned Sub-Judge 1st after hearing the parties and not finding any merit in the prayer made by the plaintiff for injunction as also not satisfying the pre-requisite for grant of injunction rejected the same vide impugned order dated 21.12.2012 and hence this appeal.
Legal Reasoning
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is well settled that any third party rights created over the suit property during the pendency of a suit, is to abide by the final outcome of the suit. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, this appeal, being sans merit, is dismissed accordingly and the impugned order refusing the injunction as prayed by the plaintiff-appellant is upheld. However, the trial court is directed to consider and dispose of the suit in accordance with law expeditiously with contesting parties under obligation to cooperate in the same. SKPathak/- (Jyoti Saran, J)
Arguments
Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant while Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma has appeared for the defendant-respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned senior counsel has appeared for the defendant-respondent nos.3 to 5. The sum and substance of the arguments of Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff is that since the nature of the suit is for partition hence until such time that the matter is adjudicated by the trial court, the property which is the subject-matter of the suit should be preserved. It has been submitted that the entire property which is the subject- Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 6 matter of the suit was purchased from the funds of the father of the plaintiff and thus he has rightful share in each of the properties fully described in the schedule to the plaint. Mr. Sinha with reference to the statement made in paragraph 12 of the plaint has submitted that the plaintiff was forced to execute a sale-deed in relation to 1 katha and 5 dhurs of land by the defendant no.1 by applying force and with the aid of unsocial elements. It was submitted that the plaintiff was confined within the premises of the Registry Office at Patna and made to sign on several papers which were utilised for preparation of the sale- deed which has been enclosed as Annexure-6(ii) of the I.A. No.3401 of 2013 filed for grant of ad-interim injunction pending hearing of the appeal. With reference to the other sale-deeds enclosed with the interlocutory application it was submitted that the said deeds manifests that it had been prepared during the life time of his father Dilip Kumar Singh but since he had deceased in the meanwhile hence it was executed in favour of his step- mother, the defendant no.1 as a joint family property. Mr. Sinha thus sought to canvass that in view of the recitals of the sale- deeds which are in relation to the suit property, it is manifest that the plaintiff had a definite right, title and interest over the suit property. It was further submitted that the father of the Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 7 plaintiff late Dilip Kumar Singh was a vendee in each of the agreement to sale but since he had deceased before a formal sale-deed could be executed hence the sale-deeds were executed in favour of his step-mother, Dehuti Sinha as a joint Hindu family property. Mr. Sinha has relied upon the following judgments in support of the prayer made in the appeal: (a) 2001(2) PLJR 268 (Dharam Nath Ojha Vs. Raghunath Ojha), paragraph 9; and (b) AIR 1993 SC 276 (Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh), paragraph- 5. With reference to paragraph 9 of the judgment in Dharam Nath Ojha (supra) it was submitted that once a lis has been admitted for adjudication then it is the duty of the court to preserve the subject-matter of the litigation by an appropriate order so that the decree does not become a barren one. With reference to paragraph 5 of the judgment in Dalpat Kumar (supra) it was submitted that a distinction has been carved out between a prima-facie case and a prima-facie right. It was submitted that an existence of prima-facie right and any infraction in the enjoyment of the same has been held to be a condition for grant of temporary injunction and the same is not to be confused with a prima-facie title which would be Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 8 established on the basis of evidence during the course of trial. With reference to the provisions of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as „the T.P. Act‟) it was sought to be contended that once a matter is admitted for adjudication before a competent court, unless permission is obtained from the court, none of the parties to the suit can transfer any part of the suit property by way of sale, lease, mortgage or the like. Mr. Sinha also referred to Mulla‟s Transfer of Property Act at page 306 paragraph -29 to submit that the word „transfer‟ would include „lease‟ as well as „mortgage‟. It was thus sought to be contended that it is not only transfer by way of sale or alienation which is prohibited under section 52 of the T.P. Act rather all kinds of transfer be it lease or mortgage, that are prohibited until such time appropriate permission is obtained from the trial court. Mr. Sinha in support of his submission has relied upon the following judgments: (a) AIR 2005 SC 104 (Maharwal Khewaji Trust vs. Baldeo Das, paragraphs 7 and 10; (b) 1993 (1) PLJR 172 (Zeyarat vs. Kamasmali Mian), paragraph 39 onwards; and (c) AIR 1963 Bombay 110 (Union of India vs. Maksud Ahmed), paragraph-10. Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 9 Learned counsel next with reference to the provisions underlying Order 39 rule 1 of the Code submitted that the power vested in a court for restraining a party to the suit by an order of injunction is for preventing any form of alienation. Mr. Sinha in support of his submission has relied upon the following judgments: (i) 1993(1) BLJR page 358 (Gita Mishra vs. Most. Adhikari Kunwar), paragraphs 5 to 7. (ii) AIR 1984 Gujarat 126 (Ibrahim Shah Mohamad vs. Noor Ahmed Noor Mohamed), paragraph 21. With reference to paragraphs 5 to 7 of the judgment in Gita Mishra (supra) it was submitted that a co-sharer is entitled to enjoy the joint family property and that another co- sharer cannot be allowed to exclude him from such enjoyment by selling the properties to a third party as it would mean depriving the plaintiff of his share. It was submitted that removal of property by a co-sharer has been treated to be a legal injury which cannot be measured in terms of money and thus the balance of convenience requires maintenance of status-quo by the parties. With reference to paragraph 21 of the judgment in Ibrahim Shah Mohamad (supra) it was submitted that that the court should ensure that there is no multiplicity of proceedings. Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 10 Mr. Sinha lastly relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1966 SC 605 (Ambika Prasad Thakur Vs. Ram Ekbal Rai) to submit that title cannot pass by mere admission and that also in suspicious circumstances as set out in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the plaint. In fact, the judgment rendered in the case of Ambika Prasad (supra) was relied upon by Mr. Sinha in response to the query made by the court that the sale-deed executed by the plaintiff dated 18.1.2010 placed at Annexure-1 of I.A. No.4813 of 2013 filed by respondent nos.3 to 5 praying for vacating the order of maintenance of status-quo passed by this Court on 17.5.2013 contained an admission of the plaintiff that the suit property belonged to the defendant no.1 and was her self acquired, separate and exclusive acquisitions. Mr. Sinha in support of the prayer for injunction has further sought to impress upon the court that it is not only by way of alienation or sale that interest of parties is prejudiced rather even if a property is leased out or mortgaged in favour of a third party, it would create difficulty for the plaintiff since even if the plaintiff would succeed in the suit, he would have to take recourse to other civil remedies for ouster of the mortgagee or lease-holder of the suit property thus resulting in multiplicity of litigation. Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 11 The arguments of Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant have been contested by Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the defendant nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant nos.3 to 5. As the interest of the defendants are common hence the arguments on behalf of the defendants was led by Mr. Shahi who submitted that although the sale-deed was executed by the plaintiff as back as on 18.1.2010 but he kept quiet all along and has chosen to institute the suit more than two years thereafter in 2012. It is stated that in the interregnum period the defendants have entered into a development agreement with the builders and a five-storied structure has now come up over the suit land which is spread over an area of 32 kathas. It was contended that the mala-fide conduct of the plaintiff can well be assessed from the fact that he kept mum all the while until the building was completed up to five stories and then chose to seek a restraint over the defendants from leasing out the premises to a third party. It is contended that the building has been constructed after obtaining the loan from the bank on which the defendants are suffering a monthly interest of rupees 21 lacs. It was thus submitted that attempt of the plaintiff is not to protect his interest rather his intention is merely to create Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 12 obstruction in the way of the defendants. Mr. Shahi further with reference to the schedule to the plaint submitted that although the claim for partition is only restricted to 11 kathas of which 2 kathas 10 dhurs were exclusive purchase of Dilip Kumar Singh, the late father of the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant no.1, while the remaining 8 kathas and 10 dhurs was the exclusive purchase of defendant no.1 and which is yet to be established a joint family property but the plaintiff has most malafidely sought to injunct the defendants from putting the building to any useful purpose. It is submitted that though no relief has been sought by the plaintiff as regarding the remaining 21 kathas but the prayer for injunction is designed in such a manner to obstruct any step being taken by the defendants for putting the building so constructed to proper use. It is stated that the defendants all along have given an undertaking before the trial court as well as this Court that they shall not be alienating or selling any part of the suit property pending final adjudication of the suit but in order to repay the loan obtained by the defendants for construction of the building, they are required to lease out the shops. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 16 of the interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.4813 of 2013 Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 13 filed for vacating the stay it was submitted that the defendants have obtained a loan of rupees 17 crores from the bank and upon which, a monthly interest of rupees 21 lacs is accruing. Mr. Shahi sought to contend that although the development agreement was entered between the parties in 2008 and whereafter constructions had started and the plaintiff executed the sale-deed in relation to 1 katha and 5 dhurs of land in favour of defendant no.1 on 18.1.2010 but he kept mum over the matter and waited until sizable construction took place on the site and only thereafter he filed the suit in question for partition and the application for injunction was filed even later thereafter. With reference to the judgments of the supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC page 1492 (Terene Traders vs. Ramesh Chandra Jamnadas & Co.) paragraph 3 and 1987 (Supplement) SCC 161 (Bruce vs. Sila Raj) paragraph 5 it was submitted that the Supreme Court has held that no injunction can be issued against a person in possession of a property. Mr. Shahi thus concluding his arguments submitted that the plaintiff having not approached the court with clean hands rather his conduct itself being mala-fide he is not entitled to any relief for grant of injunction. Although learned counsel for the appellant to sought Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 14 to respond to the issues raised by Mr. Shahi but he merely reiterated what already had been argued in support of the prayer for injunction. It was contended that no third party rights should be allowed to be created since it would prejudicially affect the claim of the plaintiff if he succeeds in the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on records and the order impugned. Some uncontroverted facts arising in this contest are as follows: (a) Although the shopping mall is stated to be constructed over a compact block of 32 kathas of land, the suit for partition has been filed in relation to 11 kathas only, stated to have been purchased either in the name of the father of the plaintiff late Dilip Kumar Singh or from the funds of late Dilip Kumar Singh. (b) Of the 11 kathas, 2 kathas and 10 dhurs of land was exclusively in the name of late Dilip Kumar Singh and the plaintiff has executed a sale-deed to the extent of 1 katha and 5 dhurs, being his part of the share in favour of the defendant no.1, Dehuti Sinha on 18.1.2010. (c) The remaining 8 kathas and 10 dhurs of land claimed Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 15 by the plaintiff to have been purchased from the funds of his father making him entitled to a share of half of the same is contested by the defendant no.1 who claims this purchase from her own funds. Thus if the aforementioned facts which is based upon records are taken on its face value, yet the plaintiff at best can claim interest in half of the remaining 8 kathas 10 dhurs which would come to 4 kathas and 5 dhurs since of the balance 2 kathas and 10 dhurs he has already sold out his share in favour of the defendant no.1 and although an allegation has been made against defendant no.1 of forcible execution of the sale-deed dated 18.1.2010 in relation thereto but surprisingly no prayer to that effect is made in the suit. Another extraordinary feature of this contest is that although the plaintiff charges the defendants of forcing him into parting with his share of property by execution of sale-deed on 18.1.2010 but neither any civil nor any criminal proceeding was initiated by him and even the present suit filed two years thereafter, contains no such prayer assailing the sale-deed dated 18.1.2010. It is not in dispute that a five-storied mall has come up on the disputed site in respect of which development agreements is stated to have been entered as back as in the year Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 16 2008 as stated by learned counsel appearing for the defendant nos.3 to 5. A sizable construction having taken place by the time the suit was filed in 2012, a prayer for injunction was made even later. Grant of injunction is an equitable relief and one of the foremost considerations in a prayer made in this regard, is the conduct of the party seeking the same. The circumstances discussed hereinabove, leaves no room for doubt that the endeavour of the plaintiff rather than protecting his interest, is to put a spanner in the project taken up by the defendants for construction of the shopping mall. The judgments relied upon by Mr. Sinha in support of his prayer are based on well-known enunciations of law but the fact would yet remain whether it would come to the aid of the plaintiff in securing reliefs as prayed in this appeal. As I observed earlier the plaintiff as he claims, having been deprived of his share as back as in the year 2010, he kept mum all the while before he realised that he had a share in the shopping mall. Although Mr. Sinha chose to disown the admissions made by the plaintiff in the sale-deed executed by him in favour of defendant no.1 a copy whereof has been annexed at Annexure-1 to I.A. No.4813 of 2013 but the fact remains that as of today neither the Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 17 sale-deed is put to question and even if some kind of amendment for incorporation of relief in that regard is pending consideration before the trial court as contended by learned counsel, the same cannot come to the aid of the plaintiff in any manner as no order has been passed thereon. The recitals of the sale-deed executed by the plaintiff at pages 4 and 6 thereof in which the plaintiff admits that the lands standing in the name of the defendant no.1 had been purchased from her personal funds and that there has been no contribution from the joint family fund and that he would have no right to claim any excess area, are serious impediments on the way of the plaintiff in securing injunction. The defendants have come on record to state on oath that they would not be alienating or selling any portion of 11 kathas of land which is the subject-matter of the partition suit. It has also been stated on their behalf that the shopping mall having been constructed after securing a loan from the Bank to the extent of 17 crores is incurring bank loan interest of Rs.21 lacs per month approximately. It is stated that more than rupees 21 crores including the bank loan amount have been invested by the defendants in construction of the mall and some portion whereof has already been rented out to the parties and thus any restraint at this stage would virtually ruin the defendants. Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 18 Considering the position of the contesting parties it is more than manifest that whereas the foundation of the plaintiff for prayer of injunction is based upon the apprehensions of futuristic litigations, the opposition by the defendants to the prayer of the plaintiff is based upon the logistics. The shopping mall having been constructed over 32 kathas of land with 21 kathas belonging exclusively to defendant nos.3 to 5, the suit for partition is restricted to 11 kathas of land which also forms part of compact block of 32 kathas and even when the defendants have given an undertaking of not alienating or selling any portion of the 11 kathas which are the subject-matter of the partition suit, the objection being raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff even for restraining the defendants from even entering into any kind of lease or mortgage is clearly a motivated design to inflict damage on the defendants. Order 39 rule 1 of the Code definitely vests power in court to grant injunction but the circumstances set forth for such exercise are only where the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or wrongfully sold by a party. The court in such foreseen eventualities, by an order of injunction, prevents such wastes, damage, alienations, sale, Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 19 removal or disposition or the dispossession of the party complaining. The circumstances set forth hereinabove do not reflect that any of such conditions is prevailing in the present case requiring this Court to issue an order of restraint to the defendants from doing or from refraining from doing any act. The prayer made by the plaintiff does not even satisfy the pre- requisites for grant of injunction. The suit property being admittedly in the possession of the defendants, there is no question of dispossession nor there exists any prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. On the issue of balance of convenience also the balance is definitely in favour of the defendants considering the investment made in the property and thus any interference with the project at this stage is not going to affect the plaintiff in any manner rather it is the defendants who shall be suffering irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by the plaintiff. The distinction tried to be created by Mr. Sinha between a prima-facie case and prima-facie right to submit that the sale-deeds did reflect a right of the plaintiff in the suit property would rather go in favour of the defendants as the sale- deeds are admittedly in the name of Dehuti Sinha and until such time that it is proved before the trial court that the property was Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 20 purchased from the joint family funds, the equilibrium tilts in favour of the defendant no.1. The contest set out by the parties before this Court stands answered by a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2008)11 SCC 1(Mandali Ranganna vs. T.Ramchandra) and I am tempted to refer to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment: “21. While considering an application for grant of injunction, the Court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto, viz. existence of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties.” “22. The grant of injunction is an equitable relief. A person who has kept quiet for a long time and the properties to deal with allowed another exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. The Court will not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that grant or serious consequences depending upon the nature thereof. The Courts dealing with such matters must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties. For the said purpose, application of mind on the part of the courts is imperative. Contentions raised by the parties must be determined objectively.” (Emphasis supplied) injunction has refusal of The discussions on the issue posed, the judicial pronouncement on the issue and the circumstances prevailing all draw in favour of the defendants for any impediment, obstruction or restraint at this stage, would seriously, adversely Patna High Court MA No.147 of 2013 (6) dt.19-08-2013 21 and prejudicially affect the interest of the defendants with the plaintiff nothing to loose. This Court wonders as to how once the defendants have undertaken not to alienate or sell any portion of 11 kathas of land which is the subject-matter of the suit property, the leasing out of any portion thereof can materially prejudice the interest of the plaintiff even when the interest of the plaintiff is fully protected by the provisions of