Smt. Santara Devi W/O Shri ... vs Chandraprakash Son Of Shri ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5720 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:27366]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1588/2021

Smt. Santara Devi W/o Shri Bhagchand, Aged About 70 Years,
R/o Village Katheda, Tehsil Kekdi District Ajmer Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.       Chandraprakash Son Of Shri Pokharlal, R/o Kota Road,
         Tehsil Kekdi District Ajmer
2.       Dhanraj Dhupiya Alleged Son Shri Ugrasingh, Deceased
         Through Legal Heirs.
2/1.     Jatan W/o Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya, R/o House No. 20/22
         Badhir School Ke Pas Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer.
2/2.     Shatruanjay Son Of Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya, R/o House No.
         20/22 Badhir School Ke Pas Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer.
2/3.     Anima D/o Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya, R/o House No. 20/22
         Badhir School Ke Pas Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer.
2/4.     Garima D/o Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya., R/o House No. 20/22
         Badhir School Ke Pas Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer.
2/5.     Mahima D/o Shri Dhanraj Dhupiya, R/o House No. 20/22
         Badhir School Ke Pas Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer.
3.       Bank Manager Sbi Branch Kadeda, District Ajmer.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 07/10/2023

Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the

order dated 25.08.2021 passed by Additional District & Sessions

Judge No.2, Kekri, Ajmer in Civil Case No.57/2018 (38/2012) (CIS

No.129/2014) titled as Smt. Santara Vs. Chandraprakash & Ors.,

[2023:RJ-JP:27366] (2 of 2) [CMA-1588/2021]

whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule

1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court

wrongly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by

the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that

appellant is religious daughter of the deceased Ugra Singh. Ugra

Singh is owner of the disputed property but respondent No.2 has

wrongly procured the patta by saying that he is adopted son of

Ugra Singh. Appellant had filed a suit to declare the said patta null

and void. So, order of the trial court be set aside and status quo of

the disputed property be maintained.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.

While deciding the temporary injunction application, the trial

court clearly mentioned that appellant had deliberately did not

disclose the fact that the half of the property was sold to the son

of the appellant by respondent No.2. The trial court clearly

mentioned that patta of disputed property was in the name of

respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 had sold half of the

property to respondent No.1 through registered sale deed. So, no

prima facie case was found to have been made out in favour of the

appellant. So, in my considered opinion, the present appeal being

devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed

accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /237

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)