Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1732 (RAJ)

Ranjeet Singh v. Srichand

2015-10-05

VINEET KOTHARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants/defendants have filed the present misc. appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 and 2 CPC assailing the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Churu, in Civil Case No.13/2015- Srichand v. Ranjeet & Ors. , whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was allowed while restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering the possession and construction of the plaintiff/respondent on the land in question during the pendency of the main suit. 2. , whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was allowed while restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering the possession and construction of the plaintiff/respondent on the land in question during the pendency of the main suit. 2. The relevant findings of the learned court below while allowing plaintiffs application for temporary reads as under:- ^ ^ oknxzLr olh;rukek ls iwoZ LoxhZ; lksgujke us olh;rukek fnukad 2-5-1985 rFkk caVokjkukek fnukad 2-10-1986 dks fu"ikfnr djok fn;k x;k Fkk] ftldks vizkFkhZ us Lohdkj ugha fd;k gSA ml fLFkfr esa i'pkRorhZ olh;rukek ;fn 5-10-1986 ;fn LoxhZ; lksgujke }kjk Lo;a ds iq= vizkFkhZ la[;k 1&j.kthr ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr djk;k tkrk rks mDr olh;rukek ml fLFkfr esa oS/k gksrk] tc iwoZ esa iathd'r olh;rukek 2-5-1985 dks fof/kor :i ls fujLr djok fn;k tkrk rFkk mldk vadu i'pkrorhZ olh;rukek esa fd;k x;k gksrk] fdarq ,slk dksbZ rF; vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk i=koyh ij izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;gka rd fd iwoZ fu"ikfnr olh;rukek fnukad 2-5-1985 dk mYys[k Hkh i'pkrorhZ olh;rukek fnukad 5-10-1986 esa ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl n'f"Vdks.k ds en~nsutj Hkh vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk is'k olh;rukek oS/k ,oa mfpr ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA bl izdkj fookfnr Hkw[k.M ds LokfeRo ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ i{k }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s lacaf/kr O;fDr;ksa ds 'kiFk i=ksa o mlls lacaf/kr izys[kksa dks voyksfdr fd;k tkdj ns[kk tk, rks muds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ JhpUn oknxzLr lEiw.kZ Hkw[k.M ds vk/ks iwoZ fgLls ij LokfeRo ds lkFk&lkFk dkfct gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj miyC/k lk{;kuqlkj izFke n'"V;k fcanw izkFkhZ ds i{k esa cuuk ik;k tkrk gSA fookfnr Hkw[k.M ds dCts ,oa LokfeRo ds laca/k esa nksuksa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n'"Vkarksa dk gekjs }kjk /;kuiwoZd v/;;u fd;k x;kA vizkFkhZ i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ@oknh us Lo;a ds nkos dks i;kZIr U;k; 'kqYd ij is'k ugha fd;k gS] bl izdkj mldk nkok fof/kuqlkj iksf"kr u gksus ls fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA bl laca/k esa vizkFkhZ i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us gekjs le{k U;kf;d n'"VkUr M/s. Orient Craft Infrastructure Ltd. v. Smt. Subhadra & Others , izLrqr fd;k gSA gekjs }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n'"VkUr esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, bl ekeys dh oLrq fLFkfr dks ns[kk tk, rks izkFkhZ us Lo;a dk nkok LFkkbZ O;kns'k ds vuqrks"k ds lkFk is'k djrs gq, blesa fu/kkZfjr dksVZ Qhl vnk djds is'k fd;k gSA ;fn nkok ?kks"k.kkRed gS vkSj ml ij fookfnr Hkw[k.M ds cktkj ewY; ij dksVZ Qhl vnk dh tkuh gS ;k ugha] ;g fo"k;oLrq ewy okn ds fopkj.k ds nkSjku dh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izLrqr n'"VkUr esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dk vuqlj.k djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks fopkj.k dh bl LVst ij okafNr vuqrks"k iznku fd, tkus ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA izkFkhZ i{k }kjk miyC/k djok, x, 'kiFk i=ksa o vU; izysf[k; lk{; ds vk/kkj ij oknxzLr Hkw[k.M mlds LokfeRo dk gksdj ml ij mldk dCtk gksuk ik;k x;k gSA ftl ij mldk fuekZ.k dk;Z py jgk gSA ml fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk fcuk oS/kkfud vkSfpR; ds mlds fuekZ.k dk;Z dks jksds tkus dk dksbZ oS/kkfud vf/kdkj ugha jg tkrk gSA tSlk fd] bl fcUnq ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk U;kf;d n'"VkUr Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Etc. v. T. Ramchandra & Ors., 2008 (3) DNJ (SC) 951 , izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA blh vuqdze esa izkFkhZ i{k }kjk gekjs le{k Mahado Savlaram Shelke Vs. The Puna Municipal Coporation, ds U;kf;d n'"VkUr dks is'k fd;k x;k gSA izLrqr U;kf;d n'"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dk vknj lfgr vuqlj{k.k djrs gq, bl ekeys dks ns[kk tk, rks vizkFkhZ i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds bl rdZ ls ge bl gn rd lger gS fd vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds ek/;e ls iznRr fd;k tkus okyk ,slk vuqrks"k ftlds vk/kkj ij nkos dk vuqrks"k gh izkIr gks tk, rks ml fLFkfr esa ,slk vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A fdUrq bl rF;ksa ds foijhr lanfHkZr U;kf;d n'"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj tc izkFkhZ i{k }kjk miyC/k djok, x, vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij izFke n'"V~;k gh ;g izekf.kr gks tkrk gS fd oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij mlh dk dCtk ,oa LokfeRo gS rks ml fLFkfr esa ml ij fd, tkus okys fuekZ.k dk;Z esa foi{kh dks O;o/kku mRiUu djus dk dksbZ oS/kkfud vf/kdkj ugha jg tkrk gSA bl izdkj oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ds dCts ,oa LokfeRo ds laca/k esa nksuksa i{kksa ds }kjk miyC/k djok, x, rF;ksa] nLrkostkr o 'kiFk i=ksa esa of.kZr fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[kk tkdj bl ekeys dh oLrqfLFkfr dks ns[kk tk, rks oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij izFke n'"V~;k dCtk izkFkhZ dk gksuk ik;k tkrk gS] ftl ij mldk fuekZ.k dk;Z py jgk gSA tgka rd fookfnr Hkw[k.M ds LokfeRo laca/kh fLFkfr dks Hkh ns[kk tk, rks ;g fopkj.k dh fo"k; oLrq gS] fdUrq izkFkhZ JhpUn dks fookfnr Hkw[k.M] oS/k olh;rekuk ds vk/kkj ij Lo;a ds LoxhZ; firk lksgujke ls izkIr gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZ i{k oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij izkFkhZ ds fuekZ.k dk;Z dks jksdus dk dksbZ oS/kkfud vf/kdkj ugha j[krk gSA bl foospu ds vk/kkj ij izFke n'"V~;k fcanq izkFkhZ ds i{k esa cuuk ik;k tkrk gSA ^ ^ 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, who has entered Caveat in the present misc. appeal, this Court finds no force in the present misc. appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, who has entered Caveat in the present misc. appeal, this Court finds no force in the present misc. appeal. The learned trial court has found all the three ingredients in favour of plaintiff/respondent i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss since the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land on the basis of a registered Will dated 02.05.1985 and the defendants failed to prima facie establish that second Will in their favour having signatures of late Sh. Sohan Ram, even though everywhere else he used to put his thumb impression only, was a Will worthy of depriving the plaintiff of the suit property at this stage. 4. Accordingly, the present misc. appeal filed by the defendants/appellant is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the court below forthwith.Appeal dismissed.