Disposed

Kishna Ram @ Kishan Singh Sankhala v. Ram Dayal Parihar

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2023CMA/1642/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court heard a civil miscellaneous appeal and connected cross objections regarding an interim injunction order relating to disputed land in Jodhpur. The Court affirmed the order reserving specific land with a modification to maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order affirmed with modification requiring respondents to maintain status quo regarding 16 x 25 sq. ft. land in Plot No.14.

Kishna Ram @ Kishan Singh Sankhala Vs Ram Dayal… — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:43237]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 30/2023

¶4

Narpat Singh Parihar S/o Birma Ram Parihar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Near Tilwadiya Bera, 32 Prem Vihar, Near Chopasani Road, Jodhpur.

¶5

Ram Dayal Parihar S/o Mangla Ram Parihar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Tilwadiya Bera,prem Vihar,in Front Of Chopasani School, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur , Rajasthan, through Power Of Attorney Holder Narpat Singh Parihar S/o Birma Ram Parihar,r/o Tilwadiya Bera, 32 Prem Vihar, Near Chaupasni Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kishna Ram @ Kishan Singh Sankhala S/o Govind Ram Sankhala, Aged About 52 Years, B/c Mali R/o Near Tilwadiya Bera, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur , Rajasthan.

¶9

Dungar Ram @ Dungar Singh Sankhala S/o Govind Ram Sankhala, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Near Tilwadiya Bera, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur , Rajasthan.

¶10

Jodhpur Development Authority, Through Secretary Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1642/2022

¶14

Kishna Ram @ Kishan Singh Sankhala S/o Govind Ram Sankhala, Aged About 52 Years, B/c Mali R/o Near Tilwadiya Bera, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur , Rajasthan.

¶15

Dungar Ram @ Dungar Singh Sankhala S/o Govind Ram Sankhala, Aged About 61 Years, B/c Mali R/o Near Tilwadiya Bera, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur , Rajasthan.

¶16

----Appellants

¶17

Versus

¶18

Ram Dayal Parihar S/o Mangla Ram Parihar, R/o Tilwadiya Bera,prem Vihar,in Front Of Chopasani School, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur , Rajasthan.

¶19

Narpat Singh Parihar S/o Birma Ram Parihar, R/o Near Tilwadiya Bera, 32 Prem Vihar, Near Chopasani Road, Jodhpur.

¶20

(2 of 4) [XOBJC-30/2023]

¶21

[2023:RJ-JD:43237]

¶22

Jodhpur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Deepak Nehra (for appellants in
	CMA No.1642/22)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Moti Singh (for Cross objectors/respondents)

¶25

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶26

Judgment

¶27

12/12/2023

¶28

The Civil Misc. Appeal (No.1642/2022) has been preferred against the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.07, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No.42/2022 (NCV No.73/2022) whereby an application preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure as preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs appellants had been rejected. However, vide the said order, while rejecting the application of the plaintiffs, the Court, on the undertaking given on behalf of the counsel appearing for the defendants, directed that land ad measuring 16 X 25 sq. ft. (44 sq. yards) out of Plot No.14 be reserved till the disposal of the suit.

¶29

Aggrieved against the said order, the appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs Kishna Ram and Dungar Ram in which the cross objections have been preferred by defendants No.1 & 2; Narpat Singh Parihar and Ram Dayal Parihar.

¶30

Vide interim order dated 22.09.2022, the respondents were restrained from alienating the disputed property and both the

[2023:RJ-JD:43237]

[XOBJC-30/2023]

(3 of 4)

parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents cross objectors submits that the complete suit of the plaintiffs was for 342 sq.yds. of land only and it was an admitted case of the plaintiffs themselves that 302 sq.yds. of land (Plots No.5 & 6) had already been registered in their names. Learned counsel submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs pertained to remaining 40 sq.yds. of land only and hence, the interim order qua the complete property deserves to be modified.

¶36

However, with the consent of both the counsels, the appeal as well as the cross objections have been heard finally.

¶37

A bare perusal of the plaint (copy of which, as supplied by counsel for the respondents, has been taken on record) makes it clear that it is an admitted case of the plaintiffs that qua 302 sq. yds. of land, patta of two plots being Plots No.5 & 6 had been got issued in their favour. The dispute pertains to 40 sq.yds. land only as the case of the plaintiffs is that they are entitled for 342 sq.yds. of land.

¶38

In view of the specific pleadings of the plaintiffs themselves, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned dated 08.03.2022 which directs for reserving of 44 sq. yds. land.

¶39

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents made a specific statement that 16 x 25 sq.ft. land of Plot No.14 is intact and status qua regarding the said plot has been maintained by the respondents till date.

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:43237]

[XOBJC-30/2023]

In view of the specific statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, the present appeal is disposed of while affirming the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 with a modification that the respondents shall maintain status quo regarding ownership and possession of 16 X 25 sq. ft. (44 sq. yds.) of land in northern side of Plot No.14 till the disposal of the suit.

¶44

The cross objections also stand disposed of.

¶45

The stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶46

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶47

67-/devanshi/Vij/-

Kishna Ram @ Kishan Singh Sankhala v. Ram Dayal Parihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishna Ram @ Kishan Singh Sankhala v. Ram Dayal Parihar

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

Phool Kanwar Vs Sher Singh

Parasmal Vs Narayan Lal

Mega Suryaurja Private Limited Vs Bhanwar Singh

Lalita Sharma Vs Naveen Sharma

Virma Ram Vs Ajma Ram

Chandraveer Digambar Jain Dasha Humad Samaj Charitable Trust (Registration No 24/UDAI/2003) Vs Shri Ashok Kumar Shah