BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Babulal

Judgment

2. Babulal S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of House No. 52, Jamadaron Ki Dhani, Phalyawas, Tehsil- Bassi, District-Jaipur (Raj.). Ramniwas S/o Shri Kalyan, (Died During Pending Trial) Through Following Legal Heirs-

2/1. Smt. Geeta W/o Shri Ramniwas(Wife)., Resident Of House No. 85, Village Khatepura Mukhya Gaon, Tehsil Bassi, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 2/2. Kailash S/o Shri Ramniwas, (Son) Resident Of House No. 85, Village Khatepura, Mukhya Gaon Tehsil-Bassi, District- Jaipur (Raj.). 2/3. Banwari S/o Shri Ramniwas, (Son) Resident Of House No. 85, Village Khatepura, Mukhya Gaon Tehsil-Bassi, District- Jaipur (Raj.). 2/4. Ms. Asha D/o Shri Ramniwas, (Daughter) Resident Of House No. 85, Village Khatepura, Mukhya Gaon Tehsil- Bassi, District-Jaipur (Raj.).

8. Smt. Dhapu Devi W/o Late Shri Jagdish, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of House No. 16, Khatepura Village Khatepura, Tehsil Bassi, District-Jaipur Presently Resident Of Village Toongi, Post Toonga, Tehsil-Toonga, District- Jaipur (Raj.). Ashok Gurjar S/o Late Shri Jagdish, Aged Major, Resident Of House No. 16, Khatepura Village Khatepura, Tehsil Bassi, District-Jaipur Presently Resident Of Village Toongi, Post Toonga, Tehsil-Toonga, District-Jaipur (Raj.). Bhagwan Sahay S/o Late Shri Jagdish, Aged Major, Resident Of House No. 16, Khatepura Village Khatepura, Tehsil Bassi, District-Jaipur Presently Resident Of Village Toongi, Post Toonga, Tehsil-Toonga, District-Jaipur (Raj.). Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Shri Babulal D/o Late Shri Jagdish, Aged Major, Resident Of Village Bendada, Tehsil Bassi, District-Jaipur (Raj.). Smt. Manbhar Devi W/o Shri Devnarayan D/o Late Shri Jagdish, Aged Major, Resident Of Village Heengoti, Tehsil- Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.). Smt. Kamoud W/o Late Shri Gogi D/o Late Shri Jagdish, Aged Major, Resident Of Village Heengoti, Tehsil Bassi, District-Jaipur (Raj.).

9. Smt. Anita W/o Shri Pappu Gurjar D/o Late Shri Jagdish, [2026:RJ-JP:3896] (2 of 5) [CMA-4399/2024]

11. Village Aarwadi, Tehsil-Jamwaramgarh, District-Jaipur (Raj.). Kumari Seema D/o Late Shri Jagdish, Aged Major, Resident Of House No. 16, Khatepura, Village Khatepura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur Presently Resident Of Village Toongi Post Toonga Tehsil Toonga, District-Jaipur (Raj.). Kumari Anokhi D/o Late Shri Jagdish, Aged Major, Resident Of House No. 16, Khatepura, Village Khatepura, Tehsil-Bassi, District-Jaipur. Presently Resident Of Village Toongi Post Toonga, Tehsil Toonga, District-Jaipur (Raj.).

12. M/s M.k.u. Holding Private Limited, Address 104, Munish Plaza-20, Ansari Road, Dariyaganj, Delhi Through Authorized Authority Shri Rajeev Dudeja S/o Shri Yashpal Dudeja, Aged About 55 Years, Office At 73, Udyog Vihar, Phaze-1, Gurgaon. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini with Mr. Abhilash Sharma Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma : Mr. Mahesh Gupta Mr. Nirbhay Tiwari Ms. Pooja Chouhan Ms. Kanika Burman HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 28/01/2026

1. The present appeal has been filed assailing order dated

24.09.2024, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in CIS No. 19/2021, whereby, the learned Trial Court has partly allowed the temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and directed the party to maintain status-quo with regard to the site as well as record of the disputed property.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant contends that for an alleged agreement to sell dated 17.05.2007, suit has been [2026:RJ-JP:3896] (3 of 5) [CMA-4399/2024] filed on 03.12.2019 i.e. almost after a lapse of 12 years from the date of the execution of the alleged agreement to sell.

3. It is further contended by learned counsel for the defendant- appellant that as per the alleged agreement the entire sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid in cash, however, there is not even a single bank transaction between the parties. He also contends that an alleged agreement to sell, if any, would have been executed then certainly the plaintiff-respondent No.1 would not have waited for 12 years to get any relief from the learned trial Court and such a person cannot be called as a prudent man. He, therefore, submits that at the best in a suit for specific performance, injunction ought to have been issued to the effect of restraining alienation or creation of any third party rights.

4. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a bunch of matters led by the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP Limited & Anr. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 410.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents submits that since the defendant has already sold out the property, therefore, he has no right to contest the present appeal. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order of injunction so as to maintain status-quo with regard to the site as well as record of the disputed property.

6. In rejoinder to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, learned counsel for the defendant- appellant submits that so far as the rights are concerned, the disputed land which has been sold to other person even prior to the filing of the suit are hell-bent upon to register the case against [2026:RJ-JP:3896] (4 of 5) [CMA-4399/2024] him and, therefore, in such situation, it is his duty to defend the suit in his personal capacity as a defendant as well as to defend the suit for the purchasers to whom he has sold the property prior to the filing of the suit.

7. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. This Court finds that the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17.05.2007 has been instituted after an inordinate delay of nearly twelve years. The entire consideration amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- is stated to have been paid in cash, a claim which has been seriously disputed by the defendant– appellant. The plaintiff–respondent has failed to prima facie demonstrate the manner in which the said amount of ₹20,00,000/- was paid. There are no pleadings or material particulars explaining whether such a substantial amount was paid in a single transaction or otherwise.

9. Therefore, this Court finds that no prima facie case is made out so as to restrain the defendant–appellant or any subsequent purchaser from enjoying the benefits arising out of the sale deed or from possession and enjoyment of the property.

10. This Court also finds that balance of convenience as well as irreparable loss to the parties would be balanced if the parties are restrained from alienating or creating any third party interest in the disputed property during the pendency of suit.

11. In view of aforesaid observations, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the order dated

24.09.2024 is modified in terms that both parties are restrained [2026:RJ-JP:3896] (5 of 5) [CMA-4399/2024] from alienating or creating any third party interest in the disputed property

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. MAHIMA/KRATIKA/80 (BIPIN GUPTA),J