Dismissed

Amarchand Son of Manohar v. Mohanlal Son of Late Durgalal Sharma

Rajasthan HC1 Oct 2021CW/1871/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Appellate Court's order in a specific performance suit. The order modified an injunction to prevent property alienation but removed the status quo on possession. The Court held the order was legal and just, denying relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and stay application were dismissed; the impugned order dated 12.01.2021 was upheld.

Amarchand Son of Manohar Vs Mohanlal Son of Late… — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1871/2021

¶3

Amarchand Son Of Manohar, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Ratanpur Tehsil And District Karauli Rajasthan

¶4

Ghanshyam Son Of Kirodi, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Ratanpur Tehsil And District Karauli Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mohanlal Son Of Late Durgalal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Gram Dehmoli Tehsil And District Karauli

¶8

Jagdish Son Of Late Durgalal Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Gram Dehmoli Tehsil And District Karauli

¶9

Bhagwan Lal Son Of Late Durgalal Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Gram Dehmoli Tehsil And District Karauli

¶10

Banwari Son Of Late Durgalal Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Gram Dehmoli Tehsil And District Karauli

¶11

Mu. Kasi Wife Of Late Durgalal Sharma, Resident Of Dehmoli Tehsil And District Karauli

¶12

Virma Devi Daughter Of Durgalal Widow Of Girraj, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Gram Shyaroli Situated A Hindaun To Gangapur Road Mauja Bajirpur Tehsil Gangapur At Present Resident Of Bajeerpur District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malkhan Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) :

¶15

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

¶16

01/10/2021

¶17

The petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance in relation to agreement to sell dated 24.04.1992

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-1871/2021]

¶20

with an assertion that the defendant had agreed to sell subject land to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.44,000/- and upon defendants’ refusal to execute sale-deed, he was left with no option but to initiate a suit for specific performance in the competent Civil Court.

¶21

Along with the suit aforesaid, the petitioner had also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.02.2020 and a direction was issued to both the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the disputed property and not to create third party rights.

¶22

The defendant preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Trial Court, which was registered as Appeal No.2/2020 and came to be partially allowed by the District Judge, Karauli (hereinfter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) vide its order dated 12.01.2021.

¶23

The learned Appellate Court modified the order passed by the Trial Court (dated 20.02.2020) and restrained both the parties from alienating or otherwise transferring the disputed property. 5. Learned counsel argued that the Appellate Court has erred in modifying the order passed by the Trial Court and in setting aside the stipulation regarding maintaining status quo in relation to possession.

¶24

While arguing the writ petition, learned counsel argued that the possession of the disputed land is with the petitioner, which he had got at the time of execution of the agreement to sell and thus, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-1871/2021]

¶27

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel and upon perusal of record, this Court is of the view that the order dated 12.01.2021, passed by the Appellate Court is a just and legal order calling for no interference.

¶28

According to the petitioner himself, the possession is with him and, hence, there was no requirement of maintaining status quo in relation to possession of the disputed property, else it would have affected use and occupation of the property in question. The Appellate Court has required the defendant from creating third party rights or otherwise alienating the property, which meets the ends of justice.

¶29

No interference is called for.

¶30

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶31

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶33

SUSHIL KUMAR MAHECHA /13

Amarchand Son of Manohar v. Mohanlal Son of Late Durgalal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarchand Son of Manohar v. Mohanlal Son of Late Durgalal Sharma

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

Gram Vikas Samiti, Gram Baldevgarh Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Kumar Sharma Son of Late Shri Rameshwar Lal Sharma Vs Sharad Kumar Sharma Son of Late Shri Rameshwar Lal Sharma

Sunil Kumar Modi S/O Dinesh Kumar Modi Vs Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India

Jyoti Vs the State of Rajasthan

Modal Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawani Shankar Swami Vs State of Raj and Ors.