Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1739 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal v. Rajendra Kumar

2014-10-29

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.4.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a civil suit before the trial court praying for declaring the Will dated 13.7.1992 executed by one Panna Ram in favour of respondents Rajendra Kumar and Luna Ram as void. Along with the said suit, the appellant also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for granting temporary injunction in his favour and against the respondents. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned trial court vide impugned order while observing that the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour. The learned trial court has further observed that the respondents are in possession of the land on the basis of the Will executed on 13.7.1992 and, if they are restrained from cultivating the said land, they will suffer irreparable loss and, therefore, balance of convenience and point of irreparable loss is in favour of the respondents. 3. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant is in possession of four bighas of agriculture land belonging to deceased Panna Ram and he is entitled to retain the possession of said four bighas of land till disposal of the civil suit filed by him for cancellation of the Will dated 13.7.1992, alleged to have been executed in favour of the respondents by Panna Ram. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and erred in observing that no prima facie case exists in favour of the appellant. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties should be directed to maintain status quo regarding the possession of the disputed land, however, the court below has illegally refused to grant the said relief without appreciating the facts in right perspective. 4. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties should be directed to maintain status quo regarding the possession of the disputed land, however, the court below has illegally refused to grant the said relief without appreciating the facts in right perspective. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and has argued that the respondents are in possession of the land in question on the strength of a Will executed in their favour way back on 13.7.1992 and the agriculture land in question, alienated to them through Will, has also been recorded in their name in the revenue records and, therefore, the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is not in dispute that the deceased Panna Ram executed the Will in favour of respondents on 13.7.1992 in relation to agriculture land belonging to him and on the basis of the said Will, names of respondents have also been entered in the revenue record in the year 1995 by the concerned Gram Panchayat. 7. The learned court below has specifically observed that the appellant has failed to established his possession over four bighas of land. Learned court below has also observed that the date of execution of the Will is 13.7.1992 and Panna Ram died on 16.8.1993, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be presumed that the Will in question was prepared after the death of Panna Ram. It is noticed that on the basis of Will executed in favour of respondents, the agriculture land was mutated in favour of respondents in the year 1995 by the Gram Panchayat and the appellant filed the suit only in the year 2013. 8. Looking to the above circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the appellant has failed to make out a case for interference in the impugned order. 9. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******