Partly allowed

Ratan Singh v. Bhakhar Singh

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2024CMA/97/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan discharged an appeal against a temporary injunction order. The court modified the lower court's order to restrain any interference with possession, directing maintenance of status quo regarding ownership and possession until the suit's final disposal, citing insufficient evidence of possession and unstamped documents.

What did the court decide?

The order of 16.12.2021 restraining defendant from interfering with possession is set aside and modified to maintain status quo regarding ownership and possession till final disposal of the suit.

Ratan Singh Vs Bhakhar Singh — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:223]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 97/2022

¶4

Ratan Singh S/o Khangar Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Goradiya, Tehsil Gadra Road, District Barmer.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bhakhar Singh S/o Ridmal Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Goradiya, Tehsil Gadra Road, District Barmer.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.J. Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Gupta

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶11

03/01/2024

¶12

The present appeal has been preferred against order dated 16.12.2021 whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the plaintiff-respondent had been allowed and vide the order impugned, the defendant-appellant has been restrained from alienating the land in question and further from interfering with the possession and user of the plaintiff qua the disputed land.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below erred in restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent as it was not even proved on record that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. Learned counsel submitted that untill an issue qua possession was framed and the said issue could have been decided in the suit, the finding regarding possession of the plaintiff, without there being any evidence available on record, is totally erroneous and hence, the order impugned deserves to be modified to that extent.

[2024:RJ-JD:223]

[CMA-97/2022]

(2 of 4)

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the agreement to sell dated 18.01.2010 had a specific stipulation regarding the possession of the property being handed over to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement itself and hence, it was clear on record that the plaintiff was in possession of the property since the date of the execution of the agreement. Learned counsel submitted that therefore, the order impugned is totally in consonance with the material available on record.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶19

Learned Court below, while deciding the issue qua prima facie case, although relied upon the judgment reported in 2013(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1176; Ramnarayan & Ors. vs. Hetram & Ors. and observed that in a suit for specific performance of contract, the Court should ordinarily direct for maintenance of status quo qua the property in dispute, but proceeded on to allow the application of the plaintiff itself instead of directing for status quo. The Court below further although took into consideration the objection regarding limitation and unregistered/unstamped document, but held that the said issue would be decided at the time of the disposal of the suit and consequently, held that the plaintiff succeeded in making out a prima facie case in his favour.

¶20

In the specific opinion of this Court, the said conclusion of the Court below cannot be affirmed as firstly , admittedly, the agreement to sell in question pertains to the year 2010 and the suit has been preferred in the year 2017. Secondly , the agreement to sell dated 18.01.2010 prima facie seems to be

[2024:RJ-JD:223]

[CMA-97/2022]

(3 of 4)

insufficiently stamped. Thirdly , the factum of the plaintiff being in possession cannot be said to be proved on record at this stage. 7. In the opinion of this Court, while deciding an application for temporary injunction, the intention of the Court should be to ensure the protection of the property in dispute and to ensure that the relief as prayed for in the suit, if granted, does not turn out to be illusory. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Prakash and Ors. vs. Indra and Ors.; AIR 2017 SC 3608 , the very essence of the concept of temporary injunction and receivership during the pendency of a civil litigation involving any property is to prevent its threatened wastage, damage and alienation by any party thereto, to the immeasurable prejudice to the other side or to render the situation irreversible not only to impact upon the ultimate decision but also to render the relief granted, illusory. The Court further, while relying upon the case of

¶25

Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass;

¶26

AIR 2005 SC 104 , observed as under:

¶27

“unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property to be changed, which may include alienation or transfer thereof leading to loss or damage been cause to the party who may ultimately succeed and which would as well lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Judicial discretion has to be disciplined by jurisprudential ethics and can by no means conduct itself as an unruly horse.”

¶28

Coming on to the present matter, it is clear on record that the Court below without arriving at any finding regarding possession of the property proceeded on as if agreement to sell dated 18.01.2010 was proved on record and hence, the factum of possession of the plaintiff was also proved.

[2024:RJ-JD:223]

[CMA-97/2022]

(4 of 4)

The aforesaid observations of the Court below being not in consonance with the material available on record, the order dated 16.12.2021 to the extent that it restrains defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff is set aside. The order dated 16.12.2021 is modified to the effect that status quo relating to the ownership and possession of the property in question shall be maintained by both the parties till final disposal of the suit.

¶33

With the above observations, the present appeal is disposed of.

¶34

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶36

84-T.Singh/-

Ratan Singh v. Bhakhar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Singh v. Bhakhar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Lal Vs Sanjaygiri

Suresh Chandra Vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shyamsundar Tak Vs Neeraj Chandak

Bagadiya Charitable Trust Vs Janki Devi Bagadiya

Jayram Vs Janki Devi

Dilip Singh and Anr. Vs Shekh Mohsin Hasan and Ors.