Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1563 (RAJ)

Mohammed Sadiq v. Abida

2010-08-27

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents and has directed both the parties to maintain status quo, the appellants have challenged the same before this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents (`the respondents' for short) filed a suit against the defendants-appellants (`the appellants', for short) for cancellation of sale-deed dated 8.4.2010 which was executed by the appellant No. 3, Abdul Wahid, in favour of the appellants No. 1 & 2, Mohd. Sadiq and Abida Bano, and for permanent injunction before the trial Court. In the suit it was stated that land in question measuring 43 x 36 ft. belonged to their father, late Fateh Mohammed. Their father executed a family settlement on 23.4.1991 and gave the said property to the respondents. But on 8.4.2010 the appellant No. 3 has executed a sale-deed of this property in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 & 2. Along with the suit, the respondents submitted an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The appellants filed their reply to the suit as well as to the temporary injunction application. Since both the parties were claiming their possession on the property in dispute, the learned trial Court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the site. On 20.4.2010, the Commissioner inspected the site and discovered that the appellants are in possession of the property in dispute. However, vide order dated 23.4.2010, the learned trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application, and has directed the parties to maintain status quo. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that a bare perusal of the alleged family settlement clearly reveals that although the family settlement was allegedly drawn on 23.4.1991, but the stamp was purchased on 19.9.1991 i.e. after six months of the execution and attestation of the said family settlement. Hence, it is clear that the said family settlement is a forged document. According to the learned counsel, although this objection was raised before the learned Judge, the learned Judge has not appreciated the same and has directed both the parties to maintain status quo. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Hence, it is clear that the said family settlement is a forged document. According to the learned counsel, although this objection was raised before the learned Judge, the learned Judge has not appreciated the same and has directed both the parties to maintain status quo. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Akhil Simlote, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the allegation levelled by the appellants is a matter of evidence and is a matter of appreciation, which can be done only during the course of trial. Since there is a dispute as to which of the two parties is in possession of the land in dispute, the learned Judge was certainly justified in directing that the status quo be maintained by both the parties. Moreover, in case the appellants are in possession of the land in dispute, they cannot be aggrieved by the status quo order. For, they would continue to enjoy the peaceful possession of the same. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. Whether the document alleged to be a family settlement is a forged one or not is a matter of evidence. And it is too early for this Court or for the trial Court to express any opinion about the genuineness or otherwise of the document. Since the question is in dispute as to which party is in possession, the only option that was available to the learned trial Court was to direct that the status quo be maintained. Moreover, the trial Court has also noticed the fact that there are criminal cases pending between the parties. Therefore, by ordering status quo to be maintained, the learned trial Court has also ensured that no untoward incident occurs between the parties. In case the appellants are correct in claiming that they are, indeed, in possession of the property in dispute, then they cannot be aggrieved by the order of status quo. After all, they would continue to enjoy the peaceful possession of the property in dispute. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 7. This appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.