High Court dismissed the appellant's civil appeal challenging the dismissal of a temporary injunction application. The court held that as evidence was yet to be led, no prima facie case or balance of convenience existed to grant the injunction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1443/2019
Ramgopal S/o Late Shri Suraj Mal, B/c Saini Mali, R/o Ward No. 37 Ahead Of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Behiind Of Gahlot Motors, Tehsil And District Sikar, Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Balkishan Saini Adv.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment / Order
03/04/2019
Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 19.01.2019, whereby, application moved by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that parties are closely related to each other. In-fact, in a family settlement, six gift deeds were got executed from the appellant and his other family members, whereas, only two gift deeds were executed in favour of the appellant by the respondent No.1 and his wife. Hence, the appellant had filed the suit praying that the gift deedin-question executed by him on 14.09.2016 be declared null and void.
(2 of 2)
[CMA-1443/2019]
Along with the suit, an application for Temporary Injunction was filed by the appellant.
At the stage of deciding the application for Temporary Injunction, the court is required to see as to whether prima-facie case or balance of convenience exists in favour of the plaintiff and it is further required to be seen that in case, the Temporary Injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff, he would suffer an irreparable loss.
In the present case, admittedly, appellant had executed gift deed-in-question in favour of the respondent No.1. Parties are yet to lead their evidence in support of their pleas. Hence, at this stage, there was no prima-facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the appellant for grant relief of Temporary Injunction. Rather, in case Temporary Injunction is granted in favour of the appellant, respondent No.1 would suffer an irreparable loss as he would not be able to use the property-in-question in the manner he likes, although, he has become owner of the same in pursuance to the gift deed executed in his favour.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the appellant for relief of Temporary Injunction. No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
S.Kumawat-66
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene to grant a temporary injunction in a suit challenging gift deeds where evidence has not been led.
Whether there exists a prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the appellant at the stage of deciding the temporary injunction application.
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for temporary injunction in a property dispute involving family settlements.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramgopal S/o Late Shri Suraj Mal
Girdhari Lal S/o Late Shri Suraj Mal
Sub-Registrar, Registration And Stamp Department, Sikar
State Of Rajasthan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
