Allowed

Sanwal Das and Another v. Ishwar Das and Others

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2018CMA/761/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against the dismissal of a temporary injunction application. The High Court held that the interim property was in the name of the deceased's legal representatives and not the respondent, meaning the status quo must be maintained. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and jury set aside with directions to maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The status quo regarding the disputed property is to be maintained by both parties till the disposal of the main suit. The lower cou

Sanwal Das and Another Vs Ishwar Das and Others — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 76112016

¶3

Sanwal Das And Another

¶4

Versus

¶5

Ishwar Das And Others

¶6

'41. . For Respondenttsj.

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHAWMA

¶8

Judament / Order

¶9

¶10

This been preferred by the appellants-plain order dated 10.12.2015 )C $j" $( 5 $ 3 passed by the learned &ddiri"o;nql District Judge No.2, Bayana I Y ,T :* ., ,L ?r te d District Bharatpur in Civ$l T$i+cel:l:aneous Case No.19/2015 (Sanwai " &\ Das & Anr. Vs. Ishwardas t . T * . ,. - g; &s.) -* $%* ! whdreby the learned court below ,?;i; :,,< ,,"/ $2: ::+ <., ,. dismissed the applicatsont$i:W:,.P- ~ ;:;.&G @f~.~-t:@e. ,l.titx.'."" iiYYjddd:+.. .a.pel;lants-plaintiffs submitted under order 39 Rules 1 -&iz~~eadywith.Section .s $ ",+? 151 CPC. 5 . 'd 1**

¶11

The notice of appeal was issued to the respondents but even after the service no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

I have heard Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs and perused the available record and the I impugned order.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs Shri Galir submits that the learned court below has committed a gross

¶14

illegality by not seen the pattitioh,' deed dated 12.12.1965. * i ( !, jb i.:r i; Admittedly, the alleged compro&ise 28rtition deed is not written I.'; on proper stamps nor it is rigistereikone, therefore, it was not I admissible even for evidence purpose. He submits that the ? property in question was belonging to Laxman Das as the same I was allotted by Government inifavour of Laxman Das, therefore, it cannot be said that the disputed property was of the respondent - $3, 1 No.1 and that he puGcha.&ed,'b the -.p'ro,perty cannot be relied upon !; b. without considering this fact and Bs the cogent evidence were not available the same statement ,cannot: be relied upon and on that I basis it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellants-p sidering all these facts the learned court b h.e temporary injunction application. The im and the application nction may be allowed. -. ,,we ; 3 < .;< $$: , ' L... * I have consideqgd :dthqptybm=ssions made at bar. t, 6' ill From the bare jpe&bs&lilofth:e I dy ., ; i <ti impugned order that the '? y C** **_$*e,** _'RJ> @$iqJs 4 42 1 : . ''. . property in question wa8di"a'$,@tt&e@~ ,* .bn- ,,&a x.~L$tvVT'b'~w;ad:s:: :ra,fa~,o+ur of Laxman Das by the pi-.' " /,@ ij,; --;+p> G :!a f,. 2 T%t,'.y) y~ ,< State. Respondent No fjr~%>+Ey+461 '~s$$:l,s~~,sb.n qr? d .J c ;of .Laxman Das, therefore, "i' i 0 f<7 %v** +$&* ~~$~&w0";~&~~$bII~4iiii ,A,:! : prima facie the property~~~&$g&~$@~$@~an Das and after death of ***s*,** , _,ih~9~6w.'sw,*,m_ - **I** .% . **w.**aga> 2b5*!?* *ri C,w>% ..%rni?V Laxman Das it devlv~~~~n~~~~~~~I;egaIte~piesentatives of Laxman % ?% g ,$ I , I ' Das. The partition between La'xman bas and Tulshi Das is subject I r f ;? 1't.I matter of evidence but prima4 titp 11 :" vested in Laxman Das and 1 hi "'I after the death of Laxman pds legal representatives. I , Therefore, considering all thesestfacts $nd till disposal of main suit, I I ! i I the status quo regarding disputed bkoperty should have been I I maintained and without considkrincj !this fact the learned court below only rejected temporarj iinjunilhn " I application. Therefore, I 1 i this appeal deserves to be a5ceptedl&nd allowed and is hereby

¶15

. i -.... -2-.L.!-:. . j -A -Y?$;f ., ii'.

¶16

allowed and the impugned ortlBt.L qufti8hed and set aside and L .. 1. it is 1 ,, 3 j' /'b i ! !*? directed that till the disposal of 1 I! !!.,I main i suit, 43% the status quo in regard to the disputed property shall 'be rnah'tained by both the parties. , I i I. 1 1 -..I It is also directed to learned. court below that the main suit may !; ' ? be disposed-of expeditiously.

Sanwal Das and Another v. Ishwar Das and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanwal Das and Another v. Ishwar Das and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurence Co. Ltd. Vs Dhara Singh and Others

Kota Nagrik Saha Bank Ltd. and Others Vs Amarjeet Singh and Others

Smt Savitri Devi and Others Vs Sohan Lal Agarwal and Others

Chandrakala and Another Vs Heera Lal and Others

Smt Mamta Mantri Vs Smt Champa Devi and Others

Bhagwan Sahay Saini Vs Smt Rachana Sharma