Hanuman Sahai S/O Shri Ghasi Lal vs Radhey Shyam S/O Ghasi Lal
2022 Latest Caselaw 2914 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 437/2019

Hanuman Sahai S/o Shri Ghasi Lal, R/o Madhuvan Vihar Colony
Senthal Road, Dausa
                                                                                ----Appellant
                                                Versus
Radhey Shyam & Ors.
                                                                          ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)                   :     Mr. Manu Bhargave
For Respondent(s)                  :     Mr. M.M. Ranjan Sr. Advocate with
                                         Mr. Daulat Sharma


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
                       Order
06/04/2022

Learned counsel for appellant submits that respondent No.1-

plaintiff instituted a simplicitor civil suit for permanent injunction

in relation to the property in question which includes a shop

situated at Dausa.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the shop in

question is in actual and physical possession of appellant,

however, the trial court has passed a decree for permanent

injunction, in following manner:-

"परिणामतः वादी दािा प्र्रसत्त वाद पत्र म वादी, विवरुद

प्रवितवादीगण की इस आशय का अन्त अनुतोष प्राप्त किनी का अविरने का अधिकािी हअ विक

याद पत्र की चिण सस० 1 म वविण् त भखणखण्ड वादी की ककब ी उपय अनुतोग-उपभ अनुतोग

व ्रसवाविमतव म प्रवितवादी सस० 1 दखलसदा ी उतपनन नहनहीं किी ततथा प्रवितवादी

स० 2 व 3 विवद्त कनीकशन की ससंबसरने का अधि म विवविरने का अधि-अन्साि काय् वाही किनी की

विलए ्रसवतसत्र हअ। ंबाद पत्र खचा् पक्षकािान अपना-अपना वहन किगी।

तदन्साि विखण्डककी पचा् तअयाि ह अनुतो ।"

The judgment has been affirmed in first appeal.

(2 of 2) [CSA-437/2019]

Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff submits that on the

date of institution of civil suit for permanent injunction, appellant

was not in possession and he entered into possession of shop after

institution of the suit.

Having heard counsel for both parties, the factual scenario

stands admitted that at least the shop in question, situated in the

property described in para No.1 of the plaint, the appellant is

having actual and physical possession, however, the trial court has

passed a decree for permanent injunction assuming the

possession of respondents.

Both parties are real brothers and further the appellant

placing reliance on a family settlement qua the sale deed stands in

favour of respondents.

Following substantial question of law involved in the present

second appeal:-

"Whether the two courts below have committed illegality and jurisdictional error in passing the decree for permanent injunction in favour of respondents, despite the fact that the shop in question is in actual and physical possession of appellant?"

Having heard counsel for both parties on stay application, it

is hereby directed that since the appellant is in actual and physical

possession of the shop in question, he shall not be dispossessed

and respondents shall not create any hindrance in use and

occupation of appellant during course of this second appeal.

With the aforesaid reasons, the stay application stands

disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J SAURABH/2

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)