I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT v. Madan Lal and ot hers

HON’BLE MR.JUSTI CE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Sanj ay Mehrishi, for t he defendant - appellant s BY THE COURT ( 1) By t his appeal, t he defendant - appellant has challenged t he inj unct ion order dat ed 3.12.2011 passed by t he Addl. Dist t . Judge, Jhalawar in Civil Misc. Case No. 48/ 2011 t it led Madan Lal and anot her V. Prabhu Lal and ot hers whereby applicat ion under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Sec. 151 CPC in a suit for specific perform ance filed by t he plaint iffs has been allowed and furt her t he defendant s have been rest rained from int erfering wit h t he possession of t he plaint iffs in t he land in disput e. ( 2) Briefly st at ed, t he fact s of t he case are t hat t he defendant No. 1 is t he real brot her of t he plaint iffs and t he defendant aft er his m arriage went t o his in- laws' house at Village Bom boliya Mat aj i where he is residing since last fort y years and looking aft er t he propert ies of t he in- laws.

Since t hen, t he plaint iffs are cult ivat ing t he land in quest ion. Subsequent ly, on 14.1.2010, t he defendant No.1 ent ered int o an agreem ent wit h t he plaint iffs t o sell his share in t he disput ed land for a considerat ion of Rs.3,50,000/ - out of which a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - was paid t o t he defendant No.1 and 2 t he balance am ount of Rs.2,50,000/ - was t o be paid wit hin a period of next t wo years and on receipt of t he said am ount , t he defendant No.1 was t o get t he sale deed regist ered. The plaint iffs t herefore, prayed for an inj unct ion t hat t he defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be rest rained from int erfering wit h t he possession of t he land and t o cont inue agricult ural operat ions. ( 3) The defendant No.1 filed reply t o t he applicat ion for grant of t em porary inj unct ion and denied t he aforesaid fact s and furt her subm it t ed t hat he has sold out t he land on 19.7.2011 t o t he defendant No.2 t hrough regist ered sale deed.

( 4) The t rial court has considered t he aforesaid fact s and cam e t o t he conclusion t hat t he plaint iffs are st ill in possession of t he land and t he fact of giving possession by t he defendant No.1 t o t he defendant No.2 aft er execut ion of t he sale deed has not been relied. Considering all t he aforesaid fact s and circum st ances of t he case, t he t rial court has com e t o t he prim a facie conclusion t hat t here exist s prim a facie case in favour of t he plaint iffs and furt her balance of convenience is also in favour of t he plaint iffs, t herefore, in case t he inj unct ion is not grant ed, t hen t he plaint iffs will suffer inj ury. ( 5) Subm ission of t he counsel for t he defendant - appellant is t hat since on 19.7.2011, t he regist ered sale deed has been execut ed in favour of t he defendant No.2 by t he defendant No.1, t he plaint iffs are not ent it led t o t he desired inj unct ion.

( 6) I have gone t hrough t he record of t he appeal and furt her considered t he aforesaid subm issions of t he counsel for t he appellant . ( 7) I n m y view, t he t rial court has right ly considered t hat t he 3 land was in possession of t he plaint iffs since last fort y years. Even on t he dat e of execut ion of t he agreem ent t o sell dat ed 14.1.2010 and t hereaft er, when t he alleged sale deed dat ed 19.7.2011 has been execut ed in favour of t he defendant No.2, t he plaint iffs were in possession. I n m y opinion, t he t rial court has com m it t ed no error in grant ing t he t em porary inj unct ion. This appeal has no force and t he sam e is hereby dism issed. ( 8) At t his st age, counsel for t he defendant - appellant subm it s t hat t he t rial court m ay be direct ed t o expedit e t he t rial of t he case. ( 9) Ordered accordingly. ( Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल All correct ions m ade in t he j udgm ent / order have been incorporat ed in t he j udgm ent / order being e- m ailed. Gopal Lal Sharm a Privat e Secr et ary