Smt. Kirpal Kaur Deol W/O Shri ... vs Smt. Prakash Kanwar W/O Shri ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5513 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 18/2020

Smt. Kirpal Kaur Deol W/o Shri Jaspal Singh Deol
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Smt. Prakash Kanwar W/o Shri Bhagwan Singh
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Amitabh Jatav
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                    Order

04/08/2022

Appellant-defendant has preferred this first appeal assailing

the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019, whereby and

whereunder the civil suit for specific performance and permanent

injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff has been decreed in

relation to house property bearing Plot No.14, Defence Colony,

Goner Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is in

use, occupation and possession of the house and the agreement in

question was prepared by respondent-plaintiff by using blank

papers, signed by appellant, which were given for the purpose of

purchasing some property. The trial court has committed error of

fact and law in holding the agreement as approved and valid as

well as in passing the impugned judgment and decree dated

18.10.2019.

Respondent-plaintiff has appeared as caveator and submits

that appellant-defendant has given the possession of the house

(2 of 2) [CFA-18/2020]

property after the agreement of sale but appellant-defendant

received back the possession as tenant.

Heard counsel for both parties.

This first appeal requires consideration, hence the same is

admitted.

Issue notice to respondent.

Since respondent has already put in appearance as caveator,

no need to issue notice. Service stands complete.

Record of court below has already been received.

Heard counsel for both parties on stay application.

It is not in dispute between parties that at present and even

on the date of institution of the suit, the house property is in use,

occupation and possession of appellant-defendant. Considering the

nature of decree, it is just and appropriate to stay the execution of

the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019, during

course of first appeal with further direction that both parties shall

maintain status quo in relation to property in question, as it exists

today.

However, this stay order will not come in way in carrying out

any necessary repair/maintenance of the suit property by

appellant-defendant.

With aforesaid discussion, stay application stands disposed

of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SACHIN/5

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)