Chanderpal S/O Premsingh vs Prem Singh S/O Kishan Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4490 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1200/2023

Chanderpal S/o Premsingh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village
Anah, Tehsil And District Bharatpur At Present Resident Of Radha
Nagar Colony, Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
                                                       ----Appellant/Applicant
                                   Versus
1.     Prem Singh S/o Kishan Singh, Resident Of Village Anah,
       Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
2.     Vijay Singh S/o Prem Singh, Resident Of Village Anah,
       Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
3.     Heera Singh S/o Prem Singh, Resident Of Village Anah,
       Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
4.     Smt Indra W/o Raj Singh, D/o Prem Singh, R/o Hal
       Village Hingota, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur.
5.     Smt Guddi W/o Khem Singh, D/o Prem Singh, R/o Village
       Kerua Jat, Tehsil Malakheda, District Alwar.
6.     Smt Kusuma W/o Jagan Singh D/o Prem Singh, R/o
       Village Gaudura, Tehsil Laxmanghar, District Alwar.
7.     Sub-Registrar, Bharatpur.
                                         ----Respondents/Non-Applicants

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. K. Moolchandani, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 01/09/2023

Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-applicant (for

short 'the applicant') against the order dated 01.05.2023 passed

by Additional District Judge No.3, Bharatpur in Civil Misc. Case

No.43/2023 titled as Chanderpal Vs. Prem Singh & Ors., whereby

the trial court dismissed the temporary injunction application filed

(2 of 4) [CMA-1200/2023]

by the applicant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151

CPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant had

filed a suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction

against the respondents-non applicants (for short 'the non-

applicants') and also filed a temporary injunction application, but

trial court vide order dated 01.05.2023 wrongly dismissed the

temporary injunction application filed by the applicant. Learned

counsel for the applicant also submits that property mentioned in

the plaint was coparcenary joint Hindu family property of applicant

and non-applicant Nos.1 to 6. After the death of the ancestor, the

said property was received by non-applicant No.1, wherein the

applicant being a coparcener had 1/6th share. Non-applicant

Nos.1 to 3 wanted to sell the plots but they have not given any

share to the applicant. Presently left over coparcenary joint Hindu

Family properties are Plot Nos.5, 43, 15, 16, 17A and B, wherein

the applicant had 1/6th share. Till today, the properties have not

been divided but trial court while dismissing the temporary

injunction application wrongly came to the conclusion that the

applicant had no prima facie case because property came to non-

applicant No.1 from the inheritance of his father Kishan Singh.

Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that disputed

property being coparcenary joint Hindu Family property, the

applicant had 1/6th share in it. So, till decision of the suit, non-

applicants be restrained to alienate it and they be directed to

maintain status quo.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) Radha Bai Vs. Ram Narayan &

(3 of 4) [CMA-1200/2023]

Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5889/2009 decided on 22.11.2019;

(2) Ranganayakamma & Anr. Vs. K. S. Prakash (D) by LRs &

Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3635/2008 decided on 16.05.2008;

(3) K. C. Chandrappa Vs. K. C. Chandrappa Gowda & Anr. in

Civil Appeal No.2582/2010 decided on 19.04.2022 and (4)

Arshnoor Singh Vs. Harpal Kaur & Ors. in Civil Appeal

No.5124/2019 decided on 01.07.2019.

Learned counsel for the non-applicants has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and

submitted that the trial court rightly dismissed the temporary

injunction application filed by the applicant. Prem Singh had

divided these properties amongst his sons. Learned counsel for

the non-applicants also submitted that Plot Nos.15 and 18 came in

the share of non-applicant No.2. Learned counsel for the non-

applicants also submitted that applicant wanted to take illegal

possession of Plot Nos.15, 18 etc. so, he had filed the present suit

on wrong facts. Father of the applicant and non-applicant No.2

Prem Singh is alive, so, applicant is not entitled to get divided the

property, which was received by Prem Singh through inheritance.

So, appeal be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the non-

applicants.

It is an admitted position that Prem Singh got disputed

property through inheritance. Applicant had no prima facie title in

it. As per contention of non-applicants, applicant had not filed the

suit for partition of other properties but he wanted to take

possession of Plot Nos.15 and 18, which were in the share of non-

(4 of 4) [CMA-1200/2023]

applicant No.2. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not

committed any error in dismissing the application under Order 39

Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the applicant. 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/136

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)