Kaluram vs Amar Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8973 MP

                                                              1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                          SA No. 6 of 2022
                                                  (KALURAM Vs AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS)

                         Dated : 16-06-2023
                                Shri Maqbool Ahmed Mansoori, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                Shri Harish Gilke, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

Heard on IA No.03/2022 which is an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that the appellant has

preferred the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the judgment dated 26.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Susner, District - Shajapur in Regular Civil Appeal No.27-A/2016. He has further submitted that looking to the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo, the appellant has a prima-facie case and hopes to succeed in the present appeal. The appellant is possessing the suit land and after dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff the defendants are trying to disturb the plaintiff's possession over the suit land. However, a residential house of the petitioner is constructed on the suit land wherein the plaintiff is residing with his family. He also submits that if

the respondents are not restrained from making interference in plaintiff's possession over the suit land during the pendency of this appeal, then the entire purpose of filing this appeal would be frustrated. Hence, under the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to issue an interim junction till the final decision in the present appeal, restraining the defendants from making interference in plaintiff's possession over the suit land.

Counsel for the respondents/defendants in reply has opposed the prayer Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 16-06-

2023 18:11:31

of appellant/plaintiff and has prayed for dismissal of the same.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, it was found that both the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court has not found the exclusive possession of the suit land of the plaintiff. Both the Courts held that the suit land was the ancestral property and plaintiff and defendants are co-owners of the suit land. It was also found on going through the record of the case that prima-facie the plaintiff has no exclusive possession over the suit land, hence the injunction application of him is likely to be rejected. Hence the IA stands dismissed.

List the appeal in due course.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE

Arun/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 16-06-

2023 18:11:31