Sidhnath Prasad vs Sanjay Kumar and Others

S.C. Jha, J.—Appellant Sidhnath Prasad has filed this Misc. Appeal for setting aside the order dated 18.5.2005 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-IX, Patna, in TPS No. 49/2005 (Sanjay Kumar & Ors. vs. Sidhnath Prasad) whereby and whereunder he has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents first set, under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC for restraining the present appellant i.e. Sidhnath Prasad and defendants-respondents second set from alienating, selling or encumbering the suit house in any way during the pendency of the suit. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

The appellant happens to be the father of Respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar. The other set of respondents also happen to be wife and other sons of the sole appellant Sidhnath Prasad. All the parties are said to be residing in the same house.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the house in question was constructed by him through his self-acquired earning, who was employed in Bihar School Examination Board and there was no investment by the plaintiff-respondent first set.

On the other hand, the claim of the plaintiff-respondent first set was that the land in question over which the house was constructed was purchased by selling the ancestral land of the appellant and as such from time to time the lands were sold and disposed of by his father by means of which the house in question at Patna was constructed. Also, some reference of documents was made so as to ensure payment of some money and participation in financial transaction in the construction of the aforesaid house on behalf of Respondent first sot.

Now, submission has boon advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondent first set that the appellant and the : Respondent second set are open to oust the plaintiffs-Respondent first set from the said premises, as a result of which Respondent No.1 being an unemployed person, would come on the road having no place to take shelter.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing learned counsel of both the sides, equity demands that the son of the appellant i.e. Respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar should not be ousted from the house in question for the present. Rather, the parties are directed to assist the court in getting the matter expedited for disposal by producing papers and oral evidence preferably within one year from the date of communication of this order. On no count, unnecessary adjournments should be granted by the court below in disposing of the suit.

Impugned order is, accordingly, modified. In the result, this appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.