Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1872 (RAJ)

Rajesh Choudhary v. Gopi

2021-09-28

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2021
ORDER 1. Matter comes up on Misc. application No. 1/2021 filed by the applicant-Narayan Lal S/o Shri Chanda Ram under Section 151 CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Civil Court, whereby an application of Temporary Injunction filed by the appellants, was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this Court on 12.05.2015 passed an order that parties will not alienate the suit property without permission of the Court. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the said order was also continued by this Court on 15.05.2015 and again it was reiterated that till the next date of hearing neither of the parties, was to alienate the suit property without prior permission of the Court and the case was fixed for final arguments. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the said interim orders passed by this Court on 12.05.2015 and 15.05.2015 are still continuing and is in force. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is co-sharer to the extent of 1/4 share in Khasra Nos.313, 315 & 316. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents in the present appeal namely Smt. Gopi Devi wife of Shri Kajod and the respondent No.6 Lala Ram S/o Ramdev, subsequent purchasers have also their share to the extent of 1/18 respectively in the three khasra Nos.313, 315 & 316. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to interim order passed by this Court of not alienating the property between the parties in the suit, a note has been appended in Jamabandi Kebut/Khatoni in the Samvat 2074-2077 (year 2019), whereby a note No.4 has been made in the mutation that there is a stay order passed by the High Court in Appeal No.1563/2015dated 15.05.2015 and the said note has been appended in pursuance of the office of Tehsildar Order Serial No./ Hkw- v- /15/2793 dated 21.05.2015. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not a party to the proceedings, which have been initiated between the appellants and the respondents and he being co-sharer to the extent of 1/4 share in all three Khasra Nos.313, 315 & 316, has not been restrained to alienate his property. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not a party to the proceedings, which have been initiated between the appellants and the respondents and he being co-sharer to the extent of 1/4 share in all three Khasra Nos.313, 315 & 316, has not been restrained to alienate his property. 10. Learned counsel submitted that the interim order passed by this Court can definitely bind down the parties in the suit, however, the applicant, who has no concern with the suit, cannot be restrained to make use of his property, by sale etc. 11. Learned counsel submitted that this Court may accordingly clarify the interim order passed to the extent of no dispute of 1/4 share of the aforesaid Khasra Numbers in favour of the applicant Narayan Lal. 12. Learned counsel Mr. G.P. Sharma appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants-plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents and this Court had passed the interim order by restraining the parties to alienate the suit property. 13. Learned counsel further submitted that the land is situated in Khasra Nos.313, 315 & 316 is in joint khatedari of different persons including the respondent No.l-Smt. Gopi Devi and subsequent purchaser Lala Ram and as such their share have been shown as 1/18 respectively. 14. Learned counsel submitted that since the demarcation of the entire khasra number has not taken place, in such eventuality, the order passed by this Court protects the right of the parties. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that in absence of proper partition of the joint khatedari, it cannot be determined as which land is falling in share of a particular person and he can make use of that. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that clarification sought by learned counsel for the applicant will create more complications, and it will also affect the suit property and rights of the parties. 17. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. This Court finds that admittedly the Us is pending between the appellants and the respondents and accordingly this Court has restrained both the parties to alienate the suit property. 19. 17. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. This Court finds that admittedly the Us is pending between the appellants and the respondents and accordingly this Court has restrained both the parties to alienate the suit property. 19. This Court further finds that as far as applicant Narayan Lal is concerned, he is co-sharer as per Jamabandi produced before this Court by having 1/4 share in Khasra Nos.313, 315 & 316 and as such he cannot be governed by the interim order passed by this Court. 20. This Court finds that if the applicant is having his share in a joint khata, he should have liberty to make use of his property. 21. The directions of this Court will only govern the rights of the parties, who have come before this Court. 22. This Court further finds that if the applicant intends to make use of the property, he is permitted to use the same and if he intends to sale the property, it is the sole choice of the applicant to do so. 23. It is not the concern of the Court as how the share of the parties will be divided or in what manner the partition will take place. 24. This Court is only concerned to see as whether applicant can be restrained from making use of his property, which is admittedly undivided property. 25. Accordingly the application filed by the applicant is disposed of, by clarifying the order dated 12.05.2015, as continued by this Court dated 15.05.2015 that the dispute between the parties is in respect of their share and the parties to the proceedings are bound by the conditions imposed by this Court of not alienating the property.