Allowed

Ramesh Chand Meena S/O Shri Nnuman v. Kedar Son of Shri Gangaram

Rajasthan HC14 Jul 2023CW/905/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed two civil writ petitions challenging temporary and permanent injunction orders in a property dispute. The Court invoked jurisdiction under Article 227 to modify the injunction, permitting a bona fide purchaser to use the property post-construction without third-party rights creation until the suit concludes.

What did the court decide?

Orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Court were modified to permit petitioner No.1 to use four shops after construction completion, restraining creation of third-party rights pending final suit dis

Ramesh Chand Meena S/O Shri Nnuman Vs Kedar Son of Shri… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

2023:RJ-JP:14271

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 905/2023

¶4

Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri Nnuman, R/o Malwas, Dhani Rakla, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶5

Ram Prasad S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay, R/o Village Malwas Dhani Rakhla, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa

¶6

Murari Lal Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay, R/o Malwas, Dhani Rakla, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Kedar Son Of Shri Gangaram, R/o Village And Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶10

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Dausa.

¶11

Krishan Kumar Meena, The Then S.h.o. Thana Nangal Rajawatan District Dausa, Presently Posted At Head Quarter Superintendent Of Police Dausa, District Dausa.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 904/2023

¶15

Vishnu Kumar Son Of Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, Resident Of Rajawatan, Tehsil Rajawan, Teshil Dausa District Dausa (Raj.)

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

Ganga Ram S/o Shri Moolya, Resident Of Nagal Rajawant, Tehsil Nagal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Deceased)

¶19

Kedar S/o Shri Ganga Ram, Resident Of Nagal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nagal Rajawatan, District Dausa.

¶20

Tofan Ram Meena S/o Shri Harchanda, R/o Nagal Rajawatan, Tehsil Rajawatan, District Dausa.

¶21

Heera Lal Son Of Shri Ganga Ram, R/o Nagal Rajawatan, Tehsil Rajawatan, District Dausa.

¶22

Brij Mohan Son Of Shri Ganga Ram, R/o Nagal Rajawatan, Tehsil Rajawatan, District Dausa.

----Respondents

(2 of 3)

[CW-905/2023]

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ashok Bansal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Dharmendra Jain
	Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini
	Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC
	Mr. Satish Kumar Khandelwal

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶28

Order

¶29

14/07/2023

¶30

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 19.04.2021 passed the learned Trial Court as well as dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Court.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. Along with said suit, the respondent-plaintiff has also filed temporary injunction application, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2021. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2021, the petitioners-defendants filed civil misc. appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which was partly allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 05.01.2023. Hence, these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners-defendants challenging the orders dated 19.04.2021 passed the learned Trial Court as well as 05.01.2023 dated passed by the learned Appellate Court.

¶32

Counsel for the petitioners submits that a compromise entered between the father of the respondent-plaintiff with his brothers with regard to their property and the petitioner No.1 purchased the disputed property from the petitioners No.2 & 3.

¶33

(3 of 3) [CW-905/2023]

¶34

Counsel further submits that at this juncture, the petitioner No.1 is bonafide purchaser of the property in dispute and he has constructed four shops over the land purchased by him. Counsel further submits that petitioner undertakes if the petitioner No.1 be permitted to use the said property, he will neither alienate nor create any third party rights over the property in dispute till final disposal of the suit before the learned Appellate Court.

¶35

Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs have opposed the writ petition.

¶36

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it just and proper to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

Hence, these writ petitions stand allowed. The orders dated 19.04.2021 passed the learned Trial Court as well as dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Court are hereby modified in terms that the petitioner No.1 is permitted to use the disputed four shops purchased by him after completion of remaining construction over the disputed shops, however, the petitioner shall not create any third party rights over the property in dispute till final disposal of the suit before the learned Trial Court.

¶39

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶40

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶41

Upendra Pratap Singh /44-45

Ramesh Chand Meena S/O Shri Nnuman v. Kedar Son of Shri Gangaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Meena S/O Shri Nnuman v. Kedar Son of Shri Gangaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanuman Prasad Gurjar S/O Shri Hari Narayan Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Harinarayan Kumawat S/O Late Shri Bhairuram Kumawat Vs Smt. Narbada Devi Kumawat W/O Late Shri Laduram

Bhag Chand Son of Mohan Lal Mahajan Vs Mahaveer Son of Hemraj @ Shanti Lal, Mahajan

Padam Lal Patel Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Kumar Son of Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma Vs Ganga Ram S/O Shri Moolya

Girraj Khandelwal S/O Shri Prabhulal Ji Vs Hanuman Sharma S/O Late Durgalal Sharma