Kamla Devi vs Himmatram
2022 Latest Caselaw 7800 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 626/2022

1. Kamla Devi W/o Late Shankar Lal Kumhar, Aged About 63 Years, B/c Kumhar, R/o Shahji Ki Badi, Sirohi, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.)

2. Ganeshram S/o Late Rajaramji Kumhar, Aged About 58 Years, B/c Kumhar, R/o Shahji Ki Badi, Sirohi, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.)

3. Hiral D/o Late Keshavlal Kumhar, Aged About 41 Years, W/o Arvind Kumhar, R/o Shahji Ki Badi, Sirohi, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.) At Present R/o Indra Colony, Pindwara, Tehsil Pindwara, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.).

----Appellants Versus

1. Himmatram S/o Late Hansaram Kumhar, R/o Shahji Ki Badi, Sirohi, In Front Of Rajmata Dharmshala, Sirohi, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.)

2. Smt. Ranjan Devi W/o Late Keshavlal Kumhar, R/o Shahji Ki Badi, Sirohi, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.)

3. Urvish Kumar S/o Late Keshavlal Kumhar, R/o Shahji Ki Badi, Sirohi, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.)

4. Padmaram S/o Late Rajaramji Kumhar, R/o Shahji Ki Badi, Sirohi, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.)

5. Ratanbai D/o Hansaram Ji, W/o Laxmanram Ji, R/o Kumharwada, Sirohi, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

24/05/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties on stay application.

(2 of 3) [CMA-626/2022]

The present Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the

appellants-plaintiffs against the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by

the learned District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Misc. Case No.4/2022,

whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by

the appellants-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with

Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction.

Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs submit that the

property in question is an ancestral property. It is also submitted

that the appellants-plaintiffs and the respondents-defendants are

in joint possession of the property in question having Patta No.493

and there is no document on record to show that the property in

question (Patta No.493) has never been partitioned between the

family members. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs

while relying upon the judgment dated 11.7.2017 delivered in the

case of Shravan Kumar Vs. Dinesh (SBCWP No.7253/2017) prays

for interim order.

Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents-

defendants submit that over the property in question bearing

Patta No.493 there is no possession of the appellants-plaintiffs and

they are having possession over the property bearing Patta

No.491. It is also submitted that when the respondents-

defendants sought construction permission from the competent

authority, the appellants-plaintiffs have not objected and the

construction of the respondents-defendants is going on.

After considering the rival submissions raised by the learned

counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to pass

interim order.

List this case on 28.6.2022 for hearing.

(3 of 3) [CMA-626/2022]

Till then, both the parties shall maintain status quo as it

exists today with regard to the property in question having Patta

No.493.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 105-Jagjeet/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)