Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 682 (RAJ)

Chandan Singh v. Pratap Singh

2016-05-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Appellate Court, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondents against dismissal of application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. by the Trial Court by its order dated 21.9.2012 has been set aside and it has been ordered that during the pendency of the suit the petitioner will not transfer his share in Araji No. 1457 without permission of the Court. 2. The respondents filed the suit for specific performance of contract dated 21.8.1989, said to have been entirered into by petitioner’s father; it was, inter-alia, indicated that as two of the petitioner’s brother have executed sale deed in the year 2012 regarding their share of the property as petitioner’s father had expired in the year 2002 and, therefore, to the extent of petitioner’s share in the property of deceased Mod Singh the specific performance was being sought. 3. The petitioner filed his reply and resisted the suit, inter-alia, questioning the execution of the agreement, lack of readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiffs and that the document was not admissible in evidence. 4. Along with the suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was also filed seeking stay against the alienation of the property by the petitioner. 5. The Trial Court after hearing the partiers, did not find prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and, consequently, rejected the application. 6. The First Appellate Court on appeal, after reconsideration, came to the conclusion that the facts of the matter required passing of an interim order and, consequently, passed the order impugned as already noticed hereinbefore. 7. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Court committed error in accepting the application filed by the respondents, inasmuch as, the suit was ex facie barred by limitation, the document was not admissible for lack of sufficient stamp and registration and that the petitioner had failed to show any readiness and willingness regarding the performance on his part of the agreement and, in view thereof, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Court reveals that the Appellate Court considered the fact that out of the land alleged to be forming part of the agreement to sale, petitioner’s two brothers had already transferred their share of land to the plaintiffs, though no reference to the agreement was made in the sale deed and no reference was made of any adjustment of the consideration indicated in the agreement to sale, however, it was found that looking to the nature of dispute and the fact that land forms part of the said Araji, part of which, has already been transferred to the plaintiffs, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not transfer the property without prior permission of the Court. 10. The order passed by the First Appellate Court even otherwise is in sync with the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding which the petitioner cannot possibly have any grievance. 11. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.