Rajasthan High Court
Shri Prabhuraj Singh S/O Shri Shiv Raj ... vs Pushpendra Singh Chandawat S/O Late Rao ... on 13 February, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:7209]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 33/2020
1. Shri Prabhuraj Singh S/o Shri Shiv Raj Singh, R/o Village
Shoypur, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. (Died During Suit)
1/1. Omprakash Singh S/o Late Shri Praburaj Singh, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o In Front Of 70/295, Partap Nagar,
Shyopur, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
1/2. Gokul Parkash Singh S/o Late Shri Parburaj Singh, Aged
About 52 Years, R/o In Front Of 70/295, Partap Nagar,
Shyopur, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
1/3. Smt. Lad Kanwar W/o Late Shri Parburaj Singh, Aged
About 80 Years, R/o In Front Of 70/295, Partap Nagar,
Shyopur, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
1/4. Smt. Kiran Kanwar D/o Late Shri Parburaj Singh, Aged
About 56 Years, R/o In Front Of 70/295, Partap Nagar,
Shyopur Garh Pratap Nagar, Sanganer Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Pushpendra Singh Chandawat S/o Late Rao Shri
Durgasingh, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Sheopur Garh,
Pratap Nagar Sanganer Jaipur
---Plaintiff/Respondent
2. Gram Panchayat Sheopur, Through Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat Sheopur Office Gram Panchayat Tehsil
Sanganer, Jaipur.
3. Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Through Mayor, Pandit Deendayal
Upadhyay Bhawan Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Gurjar, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Joshi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harsh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Surya Kant Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Arpit Jain, Adv. for Mr. Nalin G.
Narain, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
[2024:RJ-JP:7209] (2 of 4) [CMA-33/2020]
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 13/02/2024
This appeal has been filed by the appellants-non-applicants
(for short 'the non-applicants') against the order dated
04.11.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.19, Jaipur
Metropolitan (H.Q. Sanganer) in Civil Miscellaneous (Temporary
Injunction) Application No.14/2013, whereby the application filed
by the respondent No.1-applicant (for short 'the applicant') for
temporary injunction has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the non-applicants submits that the trial
court vide order dated 04.11.2019 wrongly allowed the temporary
injunction application filed by the applicant and directed both the
parties to maintain the status quo regarding disputed property till
disposal of the suit and not to alter/make improvements in the
disputed property. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also
submits that on account of said order, non-applicants are deprived
to use property of their ownership and possession. Applicant had
no right to seek temporary injunction against the true owner.
Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits that property
shown in the map marked as ABCD in green colour is self acquired
property of the non-applicants and rest of the property which is
shown in yellow colour is joint undivided property. Non-applicants
were never licensee in the said property. So, there was no
occasion to cancel the license. Non-applicants got the patta of
land shown in map as ABCD in green colour on 29.10.86. The said
patta was issued by following the due process of law. So, order of
the trial be set aside.
[2024:RJ-JP:7209] (3 of 4) [CMA-33/2020]
Learned counsel for the applicant has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicants
and submitted that father of the original non-applicant was
adopted by Thakur Kayam Singh and documents were produced
by the non-applicants before the trial court, which clearly show
that Shivraj Singh father of original non-applicant was adopted
son of Thakur Kayam Singh. So, original non-applicant had no
right in disputed property. Disputed property shown in the map
with yellow colour was given to him on license and he had
encroached the property shown in the map with green colour and
marked as ABCD. Non-applicant had also wrongly got issued the
patta. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that main
civil suit is in defendants' evidence. So, the trial court rightly came
to the conclusion that in the disputed property, whether non-
applicants had share or not would be decided after the evidence.
So, the trial court rightly ordered to maintain status quo regarding
disputed property. So, the appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the non-applicants as well as learned counsel for the
applicant.
Non-applicants are claiming their share in the disputed
property on account of successor of Shivraj Singh. Applicant had
produced several documents before the trial court which showed
that Shivraj Singh was adopted by Thakur Kayam Singh. Applicant
had challenged the validity of patta obtained by the non-
applicants. The question as to whether the non-applicants are
licensee in property shown in the map with yellow colour or not,
would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. The
[2024:RJ-JP:7209] (4 of 4) [CMA-33/2020]
main civil suit is in defendants' evidence. So, in my considered
opinion, the trial court had not committed any error in directing
both the parties to maintain status quo regarding disputed
property till decision of the suit. So, present appeal being devoid
of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /101
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
