Lrs Of Nathu Lal vs Kripashankar
2023 Latest Caselaw 8660 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35615]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2072/2022

1. Lrs Of Nathu Lal, S/o Late Shri Ghishu Lal 1/1. Geeta Devi W/o Late Shri Nathu Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana, District Nagore. Rajasthan.

1/2. Daulat Ram S/o Late Shri Nathu Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana, Disrict Nagore. Rajasthan.

1/3. Dayanand S/o Late Shri Nathu Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana, District Nagore, Rajasthan.

1/4. Rukmani D/o Late Shri Nathu Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana, District Nagore, Rajasthan.

1/5. Hemlata D/o Late Shri Nathu Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana, District Nagore, Rajasthan.

2. Chhotu Lal S/o Late Shri Ghishu Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana,district Nagore, Rajasthan.

3. Mohan Lal S/o Late Shri Ghishu Lal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana,district Nagore, Rajasthan.

4. Smt. Keshar D/o Late Shri Ghishu Lal, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana,district Nagore, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Kripashankar S/o Late Shri Kailash, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana,district Nagore, Rajasthan.

2. Chanda D/o Late Shri Kailash, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana,district Nagore, Rajasthan.

3. Hanuman S/o Ram Kunwar, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana,district Nagore, Rajasthan.

4. Puna Ram S/o Ram Kunwar, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana,district Nagore, Rajasthan.

5. Ash D/o Ram Kunwar, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil

[2023:RJ-JD:35615] (2 of 4) [CMA-2072/2022]

Degana,district Nagore, Rajasthan.

6. Mansa D/o Ram Kunwar, R/o Ward No. 10, Degana, Tehsil Degana,district Nagore, Rajasthan.

7. Prahlad S/o Shiv Prakash, R/o Near Shiv Temple, Merta Road, Tehsil Merta, District Nagore, Rajasthan.

8. Kamlesh S/o Shiv Prakash, R/o Near Shiv Temple, Merta Road, Tehsil Merta, District Nagore, Rajasthan.

9. Deepak S/o Shiv Prakash, R/o Near Shiv Temple, Merta Road, Tehsil Merta, District Nagore, Rajasthan.

10. Mahesh S/o Nandu, R/o House No.85, Ganesh Nagar, Sherpur, Dhar Road, Indore. (Mp)

11. Lakshami D/o Nandu, R/o House No.85, Ganesh Nagar, Sherpur, Dhar Road, Indore. (Mp)

12. Santosh D/o Nandu, R/o House No.85, Ganesh Nagar, Sherpur, Dhar Road, Indore. (Mp)

13. Varsha D/o Ramesh, R/o E.w.s. 134 Jawahar Nagar, Ab Road Dewas (Mp)

14. Sandeep S/o Ramesh, R/o E.w.s. 134 Jawahar Nagar, Ab Road Dewas (Mp)

15. Sachin S/o Ramesh, R/o E.w.s. 134 Jawahar Nagar, Ab Road Dewas (Mp)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Lal Dave Mr. Narayan Prasad Ojha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kumar Purohit

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/10/2023

The present appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r), CPC is

directed against the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge, Merta (hereinafter referred to as

the learned Trial Court) whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed

[2023:RJ-JD:35615] (3 of 4) [CMA-2072/2022]

the application of the appellant-plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 &

2, CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order

passed by the learned Trial Court is arbitrary and perverse and

deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that all the

ingredients ie prima facie case, balance of convenience and

irreparable loss for granting injunction order are in favor of

appellant. The property is an undivided joint family property and

thus, the appellants have right and interest in the same. It is

submitted that if order dated 26.08.2022 is allowed to remain in

force, irreparable loss would be caused to the appellant. Thus, it is

prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside

and the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 may be allowed in

toto.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the

prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted

that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is well reasoned

and calls for no interference.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. On a perusal of record, it appears that the respondents-

defendants have stated that the property in question situated at

Merta Road was orally transferred by Sh. Guljarilal to his daughter

Mangibai after obtaining the Patta, who by way of Will dated

07.07.1973 transferred the same in the name of Ramkunwar.

Ramkunwar made constructions on the suit property and sold the

same through registered sale deeds to Kailash Choudhary, Kusum

Gupta and to her sons-Hanumanram and Punamchand. The sons

[2023:RJ-JD:35615] (4 of 4) [CMA-2072/2022]

sold their shares of property to Vinayak Enterprises through a

registered sale deed. In an earlier suit being Civil Original Suit

No.51/1980 also, it was held that Ramkunwar is the owner of the

property in question situated at Degana.

6. The Trial Court in paras nos.8 to 13 of its order held that the

plaintiff-appellants have failed to prove that prima facie case is

made out in their favour. This Court finds that the order passed

by the learned trial court is based on material available on record.

This further finds that the impugned order is well reasoned, just,

proper and speaking one.

7. Consequently, this Court finds that the impugned order dated

26.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Merta

rejecting the application for temporary injunction preferred by

appellant-plaintiff is in accordance with law and no interference is

called for in the same.

8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

9. No order as to costs.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 26-CPG/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)