Partly allowed

Devkanya and Anr. v. Shyamlal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2024CMA/2626/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court modified the lower court's temporary injunction order to direct parties with conflicting property possession claims to maintain status quo, ensuring neither party obstructs the other use of the suit property.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 02.06.2017 directing parties to maintain status quo in respect of record rights was modified to include direction to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit property.

Devkanya and Anr. Vs Shyamlal and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:30768]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2626/2017

¶4

Devkanya W/o Paramanand, R/o Gandhipuri, Shahpura, Dist. Bhilwara Raj

¶5

Paramanand S/o Kanhaiyalal, R/o Gandhipuri, Shahpura, Dist. Bhilwara Raj

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shyamlal S/o Dwarikadas Dargad, R/o Shahpura, Dist. Bhilwara Raj

¶9

Lala S/o Nathu Ji, R/o Gopalpura Basta Teh. Shahpura, Dist. Bhilwara Raj

¶10

The Tehsildar, Sub Registrar, Teh Shahpura, Dist. Bhilwara Raj

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Bharat Devasi.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. SandeepSaruparia.

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

26/07/2024

¶16

The present Misc. Appeal has been filed against order dated 02.06.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Temporary Injunction Application Case No.06/2017 filed by the appellants, whereby, learned Court below has rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Court below has allowed the Temporary Injunction application of the respondents being Case No.61/2010 and rejected the

[2024:RJ-JD:30768]

[CMA-2626/2017]

(2 of 4)

Temporary Injunction application of the appellant being Case No.06/2017.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed on 17.07.2008 in which it was stated that the land in dispute was purchased by him through registered sale-deed. He further submits that the appellant has also pleaded that the land has been purchased by the appellant and is having a lawful title over it and is enjoying the possession of the property.

¶23

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant is having the possession of the suit property and there is no interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect to the possession of the property in question, therefore, there is all the likelihood that the respondents shall cause obstruction in the use and enjoyment of the said property in question and, therefore, he prays that the parties may be directed to maintain status quo in respect to the possession of property in question.

¶24

He also submits that since the possession of the property is disputed and at the one hand, the appellants are contending their possession over the land while on the other hand, respondents claim to have possession of the suit property, therefore, the learned trial court ought to have granted interim order while directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property in question in respect to possession, however, the learned trial court has directed the parties to not to create third party rights and to maintain status quo in respect to the record of the suit property.

[2024:RJ-JD:30768]

[CMA-2626/2017]

(3 of 4)

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently objects and submits that the possession of the suit property rests with the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the respondentplaintiff also submits that the respondent-plaintiff had preferred a suit along with an application bearing No.79/2006 under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahpura in respect to the same suit property. He also submits that respondent No.2 – Lalaram had stated that the suit property is in his name in the revenue record and on the basis of which he stated that the appellant No.1 - Devkanya has been issued a registered sale-deed of the disputed suit property.

¶29

Learned counsel also submits that after hearing the parties, the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahpura passed a temporary injunction order against the respondent No.2 – Lalaram to the effect that the land No.7944 & 7945 situated in Village Shahpura shall not be sold and further Sh. Shyamlal and Smt. Madhu shall enjoy the peaceful possession and respondent No.2 – Lalaram was directed not to create any obstruction in the use and enjoyment of the said land.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also submits that the said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahpura has not been challenged, which demonstrate that the respondentplaintiff is having a possession of the suit property.

¶31

He also submits that the appellant has not challenged the rejection of the Temporary Injunction Application Case No.06/2017 filed by the appellant, which has been rejected by the learned trial court and thus, the appellant cannot pray before this Court for

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:30768]

[CMA-2626/2017]

granting interim order for maintaining status quo in respect to the possession of the property in question.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

Upon perusal of the impugned order as well as after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that both the parties are claiming the possession over the suit property and thus, it would be in the interest of justice that the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect to the possession in addition to the interim relief dated 02.06.2017 granted by the learned trial court and thus the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Temporary Injunction Application Case No.06/2017 is modified accordingly.

¶38

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶39

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶40

41-pradeep/-

Devkanya and Anr. v. Shyamlal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devkanya and Anr. v. Shyamlal and Ors.

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

Smt. Bhudei and Ors. Vs Bhnawar Singh and Ors.

Shubhra Ghosh Baheti Vs Union of India

Smt. Magdu Vs Hotel Shakunt

Jamna Devi Vs Kamal Kishore and Anr.

Dilip Kumar Choudhary Vs Dharampal Choudhary

American International Health Management Limited Vs Udaipur Development Authority