Smt. Lila Devi vs Ramesh Nath (2023/Rjjd/011004)
2023 Latest Caselaw 3233 Raj

[2023/RJJD/011004]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17998/2021

Smt. Lila Devi W/o Shri Papu Singh, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Shitla Ka Choda, Badnore, Tehsil Badnore, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Ramesh Nath S/o Gopi Nath, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Nath, R/o Village Jhalriban, Tehsil Badnore, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

2. Chunni Bai D/o Rasu Singh W/o Shri Bheru Singh, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Badnore, Presently Residing At Village Thunithak Kabra, Tehsil Jawaja, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

3. Radha Bai D/o Rasu Singh W/o Shri Roop Singh Rawat, Aged About 70 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Biliyawas, Presently Residing At Village Kukerkhera, Tehsil Bhem, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

4. Sita Bai D/o Rasu Singh W/o Shri Panchu Singh, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Badnore, Presently Residing At Village Badia Bherukhera Badkochera, Tehsil Jawaja, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

5. Hasu Bai D/o Rasu Singh, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Bhimar, Badnore,tehsil Badnore, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

6. Anju W/o Shri Pukh Raj Pipada, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Mahajan, R/o Badnore, Tehsil Badnore, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

7. Kesar Singh S/o Shri Gatu Singh, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Bhimar, Badnore, Tehsil Badnore, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

8. Kishan Singh S/o Shri Gatu Singh, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Bhimar, Badnore, Tehsil Badnore, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

9. Chandu W/o Shri Prahlad Pareek, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Brahaman, R/o Badnore, Tehsil Badnore, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJD/011004] (2 of 7) [CW-17998/2021]

10. Naresh Pareek S/o Shri Ghanshyam Pareek, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Brahaman, R/o Bid Ka Khera, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

11. Barda Singh S/o Shri Gatu Singh, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Bhimar, Badnore, Tehsil Badnore, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

12. Dy Registrar, Badnore, Dy Registrar Office, Badnore, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

13. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Badnore, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. M.L. Deora



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                     Order

19/04/2023

(1) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226

and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"(i) That impugned order dated 05.12.2021 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No.01/2019 (Smt. Lila V/s Ramesh Nath and others) and order dated 25.01.2019 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Asind, District Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.06/2019 (Ramesh Nath Vs. Smt. Chunni Bai and others) may kindly be quashed & set-aside.

(ii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

(2) The facts in brief, relevant for the present controversy, are

that the respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of

sale-deed dated 31.122018 and specific performance against the

petitioner-defendant before the learned Civil Judge and Judicial

[2023/RJJD/011004] (3 of 7) [CW-17998/2021]

Magistrate, Asind, District Bhilwara (for short, 'the learned trial

Court') along with which, an application under Order 39 Rules 1

and 2 CPC was also filed.

(3) It was averred in the said application that the petitioner and

respondents-defendants were khatedars of agriculture land in the

Revenue Village Badnore, Tehsil Badnore in Arazi No.1287

measuring 0.20 hectare, Arazi No.1288 measuring 0.11 hectare,

Arazi No.1289 measuring 0.22 hectare, total 0.53 hectare. It was

alleged that defendants Nos.1 and 2 executed a sale-deed dated

28.12.2018 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and agreed

to sell their share in the land, measuring 0.0331 hectare in lieu of

payment of Rs.40,000/- and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 paid a

sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance. It was also agreed that the

remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid within a period of

90 days and also agreed to get the sale-deed registered.

(4) It was also alleged that thereafter, the respondent-defendant

No.1 Chunni Bai, with an intention to cheat the plaintiff, sold her

share of land (1/32) to the petitioner-defendant No.3 and got the

sale-deed registered on 31.12.2018. It was submitted in the

application that the plaintiff has filed the suit for cancellation of

sale-deed and specific performance, therefore, prayed that the

plaintiff is entitled to get temporary injunction against the

defendants Nos.1 and 3 and thus, they may be restrained from

alienating the said land in favour of any other person.

(5) The petitioner-defendant No.3 filed reply to the application

for temporary injunction denying all the averments made in the

application. It was submitted that the plaintiff-respondent No.1

got the sale-deed dated 28.12.2018 executed in his favour from

[2023/RJJD/011004] (4 of 7) [CW-17998/2021]

the defendant No.1 Chunni Bai by committing fraud upon her and

for this an FIR has also been registered against him at P.S. Javaja,

which is pending investigation. It was also submitted that the

plaintiff-respondent No.1 is neither having prima-facie case in his

favour nor having balance of convenience in his favour and no

irreparable injury would be caused if the temporary injunction is

not granted in his favour.

(6) The learned trial Court, after considering all the submissions

and material available on record and observed that the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 has got prima-facie case in his favour and

balance of convenience also lies in his favour and if the temporary

injunction is not granted in his favour, he will suffer irreparable

injury and thus, granted temporary injunction in favour of the

plaintiff-respondent No.1 vide order dated 25.01.2019 and

restrained the petitioner from alienating, gifting, mortgaging etc.

in favour of any other person and also directed to maintain status

quo with regard to revenue entries.

(7) Being aggrieved of the order of the learned trial Court dated

25.01.2019, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned

Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara (for short,

'the Appellate Court'). The learned Appellate Court, while

concurring with the findings of the learned trial Court, dismissed

the appeal vide judgment and order dated 05.10.2021.

(8) Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner before this Court against the judgment and order dated

05.10.2021 passed by the learned Appellate Court affirming the

order of the learned trial Court dated 25.01.2019.

[2023/RJJD/011004] (5 of 7) [CW-17998/2021]

(9) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the

courts below have not considered the material on record in right

perspective. He submits that the learned trial Court has not

considered the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the land.

He further submits that the learned trial Court has also not

considered the fact that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 got the sale-

deed executed in his favour by committing fraud upon the

defendant No.1-Chunni Bai and has granted the temporary

injunction in his favour. The learned Appellate Court also, without

considering the submissions of the petitioner and without

considering the material on record, upheld the order of the

learned trial Court.

(10) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

(11) A bare perusal of the order of the learned trial Court reveals

that the learned trial Court has found that the learned counsel for

the petitioner appearing before the learned trial Court submitted

that the sale-deed was got prepared in his favour forcibly by

kidnapping the defendant No.1-Chunni Devi for which an FIR has

also been filed at P.S. Javaja. It was observed that the sale-deed

filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was of dated 28.12.2018 and

the FIR was lodged on 05.01.2019. It was further observed that

whether the sale-deed dated 28.12.2018 was prepared forcibly or

not can only be decided on merit during trial of the main suit

itself. It was also observed that since the defendant No.1 has

executed another sale-deed dated 31.12.2018 in favour of

defendant No.3-petitioner herein, therefore, found prima-facie

[2023/RJJD/011004] (6 of 7) [CW-17998/2021]

case in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein and decided

the same accordingly.

While deciding the issues with regard to balance of

convenience and irreparable loss, it was observed by the learned

trial Court that the dispute between the parties is with regard to

the sale of the land and its registration and if during the pendency

of the dispute, the disputed land is alienated to any other person,

then the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein would definitely suffer

irreparable loss and decided these issues in favour of the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 herein.

(12) The learned Appellate Court, more or less on the same

grounds, concurred with the findings of the learned trial Court and

upheld the order of the learned trial Court.

(13) Once the court on first instance grants relief of temporary

injunction based upon objective consideration of the material

placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons and

the decision is concurred by the Appellate Court, this Court should

be loath to interfere with the same as has been held by Hon'ble

the Apex Court so also this Court in catena of decisions.

(14) The primary object of grant of temporary injunction is to

maintain the status quo till the adjudication of the rights of the

litigating parties on satisfaction of the trial court regarding

existence of three conditions of prima facie case, balance of

convenience and causing irreparable loss and injury in favour of

the applicant, thus, I do not find any illegality in the order passed

by the learned courts below granting temporary injunction in

favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein, when the findings

[2023/RJJD/011004] (7 of 7) [CW-17998/2021]

have been recorded on all the three considerations in favour of the

plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein.

(15) For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in

the present writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. The stay

application also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J 3-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)