Sunil Parihar vs Ganpat Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 12833 Raj

(1 of 5) [CMA-1736/2020]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1736/2020

1. Sunil Parihar S/o Mohan Singh Parihar, Aged About 39 Years,

2. Himmat Singh Parihar S/o Mohan Singh Parihar, Aged About 31 Years,

3. Smt. Girija Devi W/o Mohan Singh Parihar, Aged About 62 Years, All R/o 6-U-1353, Kudi Bhagtasni Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellants Versus

1. Ganpat Singh S/o Sh. Chaturbhuj, R/o Jeevan Das Ji Ki Kuwan, Near Aradhana School, Inside Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.)

2. Suresh S/o Sh. Chaturbhuj, R/o Jeevan Das Ji Ka Kuwan, Near Aradhana School, Inside Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. G. S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Teja Ram

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

17/08/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present appeal has been preferred against the order

dated 03.09.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.5,

Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No.34/2018(Sunil Parihar

& Ors. V/s Ganpat Singh & Ors.) arising out of Original Civil Suit

No.17/2018, whereby the Temporary Injunction Application filed

(2 of 5) [CMA-1736/2020]

by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. has

been rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that

the learned Court below committed an error while rejecting the

application preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section

151 C.P.C. He further submits that the appellants and the

respondents are close relatives and merely on the basis of the

admission of the appellant's father in some other civil case, it

cannot be construed that the present appellants are not in the

possession of disputed property. He submits that although there

was a dispute between the respondent-brothers but to cut short

the said dispute, appellant's father gave the statement in that suit

which was factually incorrect. He further submits that the

statement given by the appellant's father in that suit cannot be

used against the appellants in the present case. He submits that

even as per the site report prepared by the Police in the criminal

case, the possession of the present appellants is shown. He,

therefore, submits that the learned trial Court has committed an

error while recording the finding that the prima facie case does

not exist in favour of the appellants. Learned counsel has relied

upon the judgments of the Bombay High Court in the case of

Ramabai Shriniwas Nadgir and Ors. V/s The Government of

Bombay reported in AIR 1941 Bom 144 and judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basant Singh V/s Janki

Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1967 SC 341.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the finding recorded by the trial Court on the "prima facie case"

does not suffer from any infirmity as the appellants are not

residing in the suit property. He submits that the address of the

(3 of 5) [CMA-1736/2020]

appellants also shows that they are residing in Kudi Bhagtasni

Housing Board. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned

Tribunal are perfectly justified and no error has been committed

while rejecting the application preferred by them under Order 39

Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the order dated 03.09.2019 as well as the other

relevant record of the case.

The fact is that father of the appellants, Mohan Singh, stated

before the Civil Court in some proceedings that he had sold his

share of property to one Santosh Kumar, it was proved by the

respondents by placing documentary evidence with respect to the

suit property in question, the same cannot be denied and

disputed. To establish a prima facie case in favour of the

appellants for temporary injunction, the appellants are required to

show that they are in a continuous possession of the suit property

and since no evidence in support thereof was placed before the

trial Court, it can easily be inferred that the appellants are not

residing in the suit property.

The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that

site plan prepared by the Police during the investigation of

criminal case shows the name of appellant's father in one portion

of suit property is noted to be rejected for the simple reason that

neither it discloses the fact of possession by the appellants at that

time nor anything was mentioned about their possession. It is

expedient to reproduce the findings recorded by the learned trial

Court on the existence of prima-facie case as under:-

"9- tgka rd izFken`'V;k ekeys dk iz"u gS rks i=koyh ij izLrqr oknxzLr tk;nkn ds iathd`r cspkuukes dh QksVksizfr ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd oknxzLr tk;nkn ds Øsrk

(4 of 5) [CMA-1736/2020]

ds :i esa eksguflag] x.kirflag rFkk mudh ekrk xojk nsoh dk uke vafdr gSA gkyakfd izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd bl lEifr dks Ø; fd;s tkus esa xojk nsoh dh dksbZ jkf"k ugha yxh Fkh] vfirq lEifr ds [email protected] fgLls dh jkf"k izkFkhZx.k ds iwoZt eksguflag th }kjk ,oa [email protected] fgLls dh jkf"k x.kirflag }kjk [kpZ dh xbZ FkhA bl dFku ds leFkZu esa muds }kjk tk;nkn ds Ø; fd, tkus ls lEcfU/kr cspku bdjkjukek o cspku jlhn dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS vkSj bu nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g crk;k x;k gS fd bu nksuksa gh nLrkostksa esa x.kirflag o eksguflag dk gh uke vafdr gS vkSj mUgha ds gLrk{kj gSA ckn esa izseo"k cspkuukek esa xojk nsoh dk uke vafdr djok fn;k tkuk crk;k gS ijUrq vLFkkbZ fu'ks/kkKk ds izØe ij tcfd bl laca/k esa dksbZ izFken`'V;k lk{; ugha gS rks fof/k ds vk/kkjHkwr fl)kUrksa ds vUrxZr ;g ekuk tk;sxk fd iathd`r cspkuukek esa Øsrkx.k ds :i esa ftu O;fDr;ksa dk uke vafdr gS] os lHkh lEifr ds la;qDr Lokeh gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izdj.k ds bl izØe ij ;g rks ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd oknxzLr tk;nkn esa xojk nsoh dk dksbZ gd] vf/kdkj ugha gksA 10- tgka rd izkFkhZx.k dks tk;nkn esa eksguflag th ds fgLls ij vf/kdkj o dCtk gksus dk iz"u gS rks blds laca/k esa vizkFkhZx.k }kjk ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd yxHkx 17 o'kZ iwoZ eksguflag us tk;nkn esa viuk fgLlk tfj, cspkuukek larks'kdqekj uked O;fDr dks foØ; dj fn;k Fkk rFkk dCtk Hkh lqiqnZ dj fn;k FkkA vius vfHkdFkuksa ds leFkZu esa vizkFkhZx.k }kjk Lo;a eksguflag dh vksj ls vU; okn esa izLrqr tokcnkos rFkk "kiFki= dh QksVks izfr izLrqr dh gS ftuesa Lo;a eksguflag }kjk tk;nkn esa viuk fgLlk larks'kdqekj dks foØ; dj dCtk lqiwnZ dj fn;k tkuk crk;k gS vkSj lEcfU/kr U;k;ky; }kjk vius fu.kZ; esa Hkh bl vfHkdFku dk mYys[k fd;k gSA vizkFkhZx.k }kjk fd, x, bu vfHkdFkuksa dk dksbZ tokcqy tokc izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr dj [k.Mu ugha fd;k x;k gS tcfd vizkFkhZx.k us vius vfHkdFkuksa ds leFkZu esa izFken`'V;k nLrkost izLrqr fd;s gSA 11- tgka rd oknxzLr tk;nkn ij izFke eafty ij HkkSfrd :i ls izkFkhZx.k dk dCtk gksus dk iz"u gS rks gkykafd ;g rks lgh gS fd izkFkhZx.k }kjk muds firk dh gR;k dj fn, tkus ds lEcU/k esa ,d ,QvkbZvkj la[;k [email protected] vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) ntZ djokbZ xbZ gS ftlesa blh lEifr ds fookn dks ysdj muds firk eksguflag dh gR;k dj fn, tkus ds vkjksi yxk, gS ijUrq izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls oknxzLr tk;nkn dh izFke eafty ij mudk HkkSfrd dCtk gksus ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ ,slh izFken`'V~;k lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;s gS ftlls dh vizkFkhZx.k }kjk eksguflag dh vksj ls vius fgLls dk foØ;

17 o'kZ iwoZ gh dj fn;s tkus ds rF; [kf.Mr gksrs gksA izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ vfHkdFku Hkh ugha fd;k x;k gS fd oknxzLr tk;nkn ij muds uke ls dksbZ vyx fctyh dk ehVj] ikuh dk dusD"ku bR;kfn gksA tks fctyh dk fcy

(5 of 5) [CMA-1736/2020]

vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] og Hkh vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 x.kirflag ds uke dk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa oknxzLr tk;nkn ij izFken`'V~;k izkFkhZx.k dk fgLlk ,oa HkkSfrd dCtk gksuk izdV ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZx.k ds iwoZt eksguflag dk ujflag th ds xksn pyk tkuk Lo;a izkFkhZx.k ds vfHkdFkuksa ls izdV gksrk gS vkSj blh vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZx.k us xojk nsoh dh e`R;q ls iwoZ gh eksguflag dk xksn pyk tkuk crk;k gS vkSj bl vfHkdFku dk Hkh dksbZ [k.Mu izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa xojk nsoh ds fgLls ds lEcU/k esa Hkh eksguflag o muds okfjlku dk dksbZ gd] vf/kdkj gksuk izFken`'V;k izdV ugha gksrk gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k oknxzLr tk;nkn ds lEcU/k esa cspku] varj.k gsrq rFkk izFke eafty ij vkokxeu ds lEcU/k esa ck/kk dkfjr ugha djus ds Øe esa vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) okafNr vLFkkbZ fu'ks/kkKk gsrq izFken`'V~;k ekeyk lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs gSA "

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the

appellants are having no application in the present case as the

facts of the present case are totally distinguishable and, therefore,

the judgments are of no help to the appellants.

Since, the appellants have failed to bring on record any

documentary evidence to show that they are in possession of the

property in question, the findings recorded by the trial Court does

not suffer from any infirmity and thus the order passed on the

application of the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. is

just and proper and does not call for any interference by this

Court and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 6-SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)