Rekha Kumari, J. - (1.)SINCE both these appeals are directed against the order dated 28.6.2003 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge III, Patna City, in Title Suit No. 13 of 2003 whereby he has restrained the appellants (defendants first party) of Misc. Appeal No. 320 of 2003 from alienating the suit property, detailed in Schedule I to IV, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)THE plaintiffs-respondents have filed the above title suit for 1/3rd share in the suit property and for injuncting the defendants from selling the immovable properties and for withdrawing cash from the Bank account etc.
The case of the plaintiffs-respondents Manoj Kumar Agrawal and his minor son, in the plaint, is that Late Jairamdas Goenka had four sons, namely, Kanhaiyalal Goenka, Late Jhavarmal Goenka, Late Musaddilal Goenka and Govind Prasad Sultania. They were all members of a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara School of Law. Out of four sons of Jairamdas Goenka, Kanhaiyalal Goenka died issueless. His wife had predeceased him and so, his branch became extinct. Govind Prasad Sultania was adopted by one Ram Chandra Prasad Sultania and so, he severed connection with the family of his natural father. Jhavarmal had, in fact, Page 1516 three sons, Ram Niwas Agrawal, Gopichand Goenka and Bajrang Prasad Agrawal. Late Musaddilal Goenka had no issue. So, he adopted Gopichand Goenka. Hence, after this adoption, Jhavarmal Goenka had only two sons Ram Niwas Agrawal (appellant No. 1-defendant No. 1) and Bajrang Prasad Agrawal (defendant No. 3). Ram Niwas Agrawal was married to appellant No. 2 Smt. Sumitra Devi. The couple, however, did not have any child for a long time after marriage. So, they adopted Manoj Kumar Agrawal as their son on 10.2.1970, though after a year or two of the adoption, two daughters were born to them.

The further case of the plaintiff is that Jairam Das Goenka was Karta of the family comprising of himself and his sons. After his death, Kanhaiyalal Goenka became the Karta. Sometime after the death of Kanhaiya Lal, two brothers Jhavarmal Goenka and Musaddilal Goenka separated in mess, business and residence. They, however, remained partners in the joint family business run by them. After partition Musaddilal left "Goenka Sadan" (Schedule I property) leaving the families of Ram Niwas Agrawal and Bajrang Prasad Agrawal. It is further said that the business in which Ram Niwas Agrawal and his wife are partners, they are carrying on business from ancestral assets and the said business are joint in between the plaintiffs and defendants 1st set. They are described in Schedule II.

There was another firm M/S. Mahabir Steel Rerolling Mills, now M/S. Dina Mahabir Rerolling Mills Private Limited which was under the partnership of Ram Niwas Agrawal, Bajrang Prasad Agrawal, Musaddilal Goenka, Sultania and Kamalia families. Ram Niwas Agrawal and Bajrang Prasad were representing the branch of Jhavarmal in the capacity of partners. On partition the factory with shed and machines were given to Kamalia family and the branches of Jhavarmal, Musaddilal and Govind Prasad Sultania were given vacant land in the south of the factory premises (Schedule III property) and in that land the share of the branch of Ram Niwas Agrawal comes to 6 kathas 12 dhurs.

Then, from the family property and fund, 461/4 decimals of land at Fatwah (Schedule IV property) was purchased in the name of defendant No. 2-appellant No. 2 over which the factory of M/S. J. M. G. Steel Private Limited is running.

(3.)THERE is a Saving Bank account in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (described in Schedule V) which is also a joint family property. The other joint movable properties are described in Schedule VI of the plaint.
The case of the plaintiffs-respondents, hence, is that as Manoj Kumar Agrawal was adopted by the appellants, he has got 1/3rd share in the above properties which are ancestral properties and as on demand the appellants refused to partition the properties, the plaintiffs- respondents were compelled to file the suit.

After the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs-respondents filed a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that appellant No. 1 in league with the other appellant has been withdrawing money and operating the bank accounts in order to deprive the plaintiffs from the cash amount. They in league with defendant No. 3 also want to alienate the suit land described in lot No. 2 of Schedule II and for that they have entered into an agreement with one Md. Nazre Alam. The plaintiffs, hence, prayed in the petition for restraining the defendants from selling, alienating, encumbering with the immovable properties Page 1517 and withdrawing cash from the Bank accounts and from operating the locker and for maintaining status quo with respect to the suit properties in Schedule I to VI of the plaint.