Rajasthan High Court
Ghanshyam Meena S/O Vijay Lal, ... vs Urmila D/O Ramkripal Mena, W/O ... on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13636/2021
Ghanshyam Meena S/o Vijay Lal, Adopted S/o Ramkripal, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Village Roopbas, Tesile And District Alwar,
Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Urmila D/o Ramkripal Mena, W/o Vikram, R/o Kila Mohalla
Ramgarh, District Alwar.
2. Anju D/o Ramkripal Meena, W/o Kanhaiya Lal, R/o
Kalyanpura, Tesile Raini, District Alwar.
3. Mukesh Meena S/o Nathuram, R/o Beech Ka Kuwa
Roopbas, Tesile And District Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
09/12/2021
1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order
dated 11.08.2021 passed by Civil Judge no.1, Alwar whereby
application filed by the petitioner for temporary injunction was
dismissed by the Court and against the order dated 21.09.2021
whereby the appeal against the permanent injunction was
dismissed.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is
adopted son of deceased Ram Kripal. Ram Kripal executed a will in
favour of petitioner. As per the will, Ram Kripal bequeathed the
entire property to the petitioner. It is also contended that
respondent No.1 & 2 are daughters of Ram Kripal. They have
(2 of 2) [CW-13636/2021]
executed an agreement to sell the property in favour of non-
petitioner No.3. It is also contended that Court below has erred in
dismissing the application for injunction, as petitioner has will in
his favour whereby the property was bequeathed to him.
3. I have considered the contentions and have perused the
order passed by the Court below.
4. It is pertinent to note that petitioner came up with a case
before the trial Court that he is in possession of the premises,
however, the trial Court did not find a prima facie case made in
favour of the petitioner on the ground that he is not having
possession of the premises. The appellate Court also after
perusing the record upheld the order passed by the trial Court and
came to conclusion that on the disputed premises, non-petitioner-
respondent No.3 is in possession and petitioner is not in
possession. The Courts below did not find prima facie case in
favour of the petitioner and have rejected the application of the
petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. and the appeal
preferred by the petitioner.
5. From perusal of the record, it is evident that petitioner did
not come with clear hands before the Court. He came with the
case that he is in possession and respondents are trying to
forcefully dispossess him. This fact was found to be factually
incorrect by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court. I do
not find any perversity in the impugned order so as to exercise
writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.
6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
ARTI SHARMA /20
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
