Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 369 (RAJ)

Tejaswini v. Mohini Devi

2023-02-01

REKHA BORANA

body2023
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.05.2022 whereby the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC preferred by the appellants was partly allowed. So far as the relief qua the residential plot and house is concerned, learned trial Court decided in favour of the appellants restraining the respondents from alienating the property and further not to raise any construction or make any material alteration in the same but qua the agricultural land in dispute, the same was rejected. Against the said rejection, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it was clear on record that the agricultural land in dispute was an ancestral property and not a self-acquired property of Bhanwar Puri. Therefore, till the issue regarding the property being ancestral or self-acquired is decided by the Revenue Court wherein a suit was already pending for adjudication, the learned trial Court ought to have protected the property from further being alienated. He submitted that his only prayer before this Court is that respondents may be restrained from alienating the property further. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present appellants, while preferring the proceedings before the Revenue Court, also preferred an application for temporary injunction wherein also one of the reliefs was that the respondents may be restrained from alienating the property. The said application was rejected by the Revenue Courts and the writ petition against the said orders being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14533/2019 was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2020. The special appeal preferred against the said order dated 06.11.2020 being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.04/2021 was also dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2022. Meaning thereby, the relief as prayed for in the present appeal has already been rejected earlier and the present appeal for the same relief cannot be entertained. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of the order dated 06.11.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14533/2019 makes it clear that while deciding the said writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court reached to a specific conclusion that the petitioners therein had failed to prove that the land in question is an ancestral property. 5. A perusal of the order dated 06.11.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14533/2019 makes it clear that while deciding the said writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court reached to a specific conclusion that the petitioners therein had failed to prove that the land in question is an ancestral property. For ready reference, operative portion of the order dated 06.11.2020 is reproduced hereunder: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties; after going through the material available on record as well as impugned orders passed by the courts below, I am of the opinion that the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with. The courts below have relied upon the allotment order issued by the Tehsildar concerned whereby, the property in question was allotted to Bhanwar Puri individually. Relying on the said document, the courts below come to the conclusion that prmia facie it is proved that the land in question was allotted to Bhanwar Puri and, therefore, the same is his self acquired property. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after taking into consideration the documents on which learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance such as partition deed etc., I am not satisfied that the petitioner has prima facie proved that the land in question is an ancestral property. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on which learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance is concerned, the same is of no help to the petitioners as they have prima facie failed to prove that the land is question is the ancestral property. In view of the above, I do not find any case for interference in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed." 6. Order dated 06.11.2020 was admittedly affirmed by the Division Bench. This Court is of the specific opinion that once a finding that the petitioners have failed to prove the land in question to be an ancestral property having been given by this Court and further affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, the same fact and the same pleadings cannot be entertained by this Court denovo. No other ground besides the said ground has been raised in the present appeal. The only assertion is that the property is an ancestral property and therefore, the respondents may be restrained from alienating it further. No other ground besides the said ground has been raised in the present appeal. The only assertion is that the property is an ancestral property and therefore, the respondents may be restrained from alienating it further. The said relief having been already rejected once and affirmed upto the Division Bench, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Further, even the Trial Court has reached to a specific conclusion that there is no prima facie evidence available on record to even suggest that the agricultural property is ancestral. On the contrary, allotment order of the year 1961 in favour of Bhanwar Puri, Raghunath Puri and Sajjan Puri has not been denied by the defendants which fact itself establishes prima facie that the property is self-acquired. 8. In view of the above observations, the present appeal is dismissed. 9. Stay petition as well as all other pending applications stand disposed of.