Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 662 (MP)

Mishrilal v. Basantilal

2010-07-07

S.K.GANGELE, S.S.DWIVEDI

body2010
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 22.1.2010 passed by District Judge, Vidisha in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 62/08, whereby set aside the order dated 6.10.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge Class-2, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 80N08, whereby the trial Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit land situated at village Mungod, Tehsil and District Vidisha having survey No. 215 area 1.000 hectare. This land had been purchased by the plaintiff by a registered sale deed and he is in peaceful possession of the suit land. The respondents/defendants came up in the trial Court and took a stand that the aforesaid land had been purchased from the income of the joint Hindu family property. therefore, they are also having joint share in the aforesaid land, hence the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled for any temporary injunction. The learned trial Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner but the appellate Court by the impugned order set aside the aforesaid order passed by the trial Court. 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impunged order it is apparent that the plaintiff has filed a registered sale deed of the suit land, on which basis he purchased the suit land. It is the matter of evidence that the aforesaid land has been purchased from the income of joint Hindu family property or not but at this stage, prima fade the title has been proved by the petitioner/plaintiff and his possession on the land is also continuous and peaceful from the date of the sale deed, i.e. from 28.5.1990 and, in such circumstances only on the basis of pleading this cannot be inferred that the aforesaid suit land is of joint family property, on which basis the learned appellate Court has set aside the order passed by the trial Court. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court granting injunction in favour of the petitioner is hereby restored with a direction to the trial Court that the trial Court will decide the case expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.