The importance of evidence in determining property rights and the necessity of maintaining status-quo during property disputes.

1. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order 43, Rule 1 of CPC challenging the order dated 24.8.11 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Hindaun City, District Karauli (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Case No. 20/11, whereby the trial court has partly allowed the application of the appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (original defendant Nos. 1 to 5) and rejected the same against the respondent No.6 (original defendant No.6).

2. The appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking partition of the properties described in para No.3 of the plaint as "v"] "c"] "l"] "n" and ;, alleging interalia that the said properties were the ancestral properties. It was also alleged that the respondent No.1 had agreed to sell the property ";" out of the said properties to the respondent No.6, though the appellant had an undivided share in the same. The appellant had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction in respect of all the properties under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, which has been partly allowed as stated hereinabove.

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel Mr. S.K. Gupta for the appellant is that the trial court has committed an error in not granting the temporary injunction against the respondent No.6, in whose favour the respondent No.1 had executed an agreement for selling the property marked as ";". According to him the said property also being an ancestral property, the appellant is entitled for his share therein.

4. However, the learned counsel Mr. Usman Khan for the respondent No.1 submitted that the property marked as ";" was the self acquired property of the respondent No.1 and he had right to sell the same to respondent No.6. He also submitted that the respondent No.6 is in possession of the said property and the trial court has rightly not granted injunction in respect of the said property. The learned counsel Mr. Shamshudeen Ansari for the respondent No.6 has supported the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. Usman Khan for the respondent No.1.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court it appears that it will be a matter of evidence to be led by both the parties and appreciated by the trial court as to whether the property described as ";" is an ancestral property or the self acquired property of the respondent No.1. Hence in order to avoid any further multiplicity of the proceedings, it would be in the fitness of the things to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 6 to maintain status-quo as regards the property marked as ";" in the plaint during the pendency of the suit

6. In that view of the matter, the respondent Nos.1 and 6 are directed to maintain status-quo as regards the possession and alienation of the property described as ";" in the plaint, during the pendency of the suit. The trial court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.Appeal Allowed.

*******