Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Sunita D/O Brijmohan vs Chhitar Lal S/O Motilal on 16 October, 2023
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2023:RJ-JP:29090]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2031/2021
Smt. Sunita D/o Brijmohan, R/o Village Tanklada Ki Jhopdiya,
Kapren, District Bundi Tanklada Ki Jhopdiya, Kapren, District
Bundi.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Chhitar Lal S/o Motilal, R/o Village Khedarsulpur, Tehsil
Ladpura, District Kota (Raj.)
2. Sub Registrar, Registrar Office, Kota First Collectorate,
Premises, Nayapura, Kota.
3. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Tehsil Ladpura,
Kota
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 16/10/2023
Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant-
non-applicant (for short 'the non-applicant') against the order
dated 13.09.2021 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Kota
in Civil Misc. Case No.147/2021, whereby the temporary
injunction application filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff-
applicant (for short the 'applicant') has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the trial
court vide order dated 13.09.2021 has wrongly allowed the
temporary injunction application filed by the applicant. Learned
counsel for the non-applicant also submits that disputed property
was gifted by applicant to non-applicant on account of love and
[2023:RJ-JP:29090] (2 of 3) [CMA-2031/2021]
affection. It was nowhere mentioned in the gift deed that the
applicant had given the property to the non-applicant on account
of some settlement. At the time of executing the gift, mental
condition of the applicant was good. Learned counsel for the non-
applicant also submits that non-applicant is doing agriculture
activities in disputed property and she had taken the loan for
agriculture activities after mortgaging the land and after some
time, she deposited the loan amount. Learned counsel for the
non-applicant also submits that trial court vide order dated
13.09.2021 has wrongly restrained the non-applicant to sell
mortgage, alienate and/or transfer the disputed land to any other
person. Learned counsel for the non-applicant also submits that
on account of gift, the non-applicant is sole owner of the disputed
land. So, order of the trial court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the applicant has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicant and
submits that the applicant had filed a suit for cancellation of so-
called gift because the applicant wanted to gift the suit property to
his grand son but the non-applicant wrongly procured his
signature on so-called gift deed. So, order of the trial court is just
and trial court only restrained the non-applicant to sell alienate,
mortgage or transfer the disputed property. So, present appeal be
dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the non-applicant as well as learned counsel for the
applicant.
The applicant had filed a suit for cancellation of so-called gift
deed. The applicant contended in the suit that so-called gift deed
[2023:RJ-JP:29090] (3 of 3) [CMA-2031/2021]
was wrongly executed in the name of the non-applicant instead of
executing the same in the name of his grand son Sumant. So, in
my considered opinion, trial court rightly restrained the non-
applicant to sell alienate, mortgage and/or transfer the disputed
property. So, 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 /59
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
