Jalaram vs Legal Representatives of Shri Joraram & Ors

The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104 of CPC against the order impugned order dated 26.10.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur, whereby the appellant''s application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 readwith Section 151 CPC for permanent injunction has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial Court while ignoring the significant aspect of the matter has arrived at a wrong and erroneous finding that the appellant/plaintiff is not the son of Ramdeen and the property in question has been recorded in the name of defendant No.2 after death of his father Ramdeen. The land in question has not been partitioned and still is a joint property. Therefore, the learned trial Court has committed error in rejecting the application for temporary injunction.

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 26.10.2016, passed by the trial court.

The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deeds dated 07.04.1994 and 22.07.2014 on the ground that except appellant-plaintiff and defendant No.2 there is no other legal representatives of Ramdeen son of Harjiram, after the death of Ramdeen. The land in question is recorded in Revenue record in the name of defendant No.2 whereas after death of Ramdeen along with defendant No.2 the name of appellant-plaintiff has also been recorded in the Revenue records.

The learned trial Court while dealing with the prima facie has come to the conclusion that : "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

The plaintiff-applicant prima facie has not established that being son of deceased Ramdeen, he has right, interest in the property in question.

In view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. However, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit pending before it expeditiously.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.