2015 Supreme(Raj) 2112
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.K.Ranka, J.
Ramswaroop - Appellant
Versus
Rajulal & ors. - Respondent
S.B Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4353 of 2015.
Decided On : 18-12-2015
Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal, counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr. Keshav Agrawal and Mr. DK Dixit, Counsel.
A person who seeks equity must do equity, and suppression of material facts and documents amounts to fraud on court.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 39, RULES 1 AND 2 - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - ADOPTION - COMPROMISE DECREE - STATUS QUO ORDER - SALE OF PROPERTY - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE LOSS - CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - INJUNCTION AGAINST LAWFUL OWNER - SUIT FOR PARTITION - COMPROMISE DECREE - VALIDITY - FRAUD - SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS - EQUITY - INTEREST OF JUSTICE - FINAL DECISION WITHIN ONE YEAR.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, claiming ownership of 3/4th share in the disputed land, alleging adoption by Ranjeeta, who had half share in the property, and sale of the property by defendant-respondent No. 1 in violation of status quo order.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court rejected the temporary injunction application, holding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The court noted that a compromise decree was entered into in 1977, dividing the property equally between the appellant and defendant-respondent No. 1, and that the appellant had not challenged the decree for 29 years.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction? 2. Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable loss were in favor of the appellant? 3. Whether the compromise decree entered into in 1977 was valid and binding on the appellant? 4. Whether the appellant had come to court with clean hands?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case, as he did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of adoption by Ranjeeta and possession over the disputed land. 2. The court found that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss were not in favor of the appellant, as the property had been sold to the defendants-respondents No. 2 and 3, who had obtained mutation in their names. 3. The court held that the compromise decree entered into in 1977 was valid and binding on the appellant, as it was entered into by both parties and was upheld by the appellate court. 4. The court held that the appellant had not come to court with clean hands, as he had suppressed material facts and documents, including the compromise decree and the sale deed.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the court directed the trial court to finally decide the suit within one year from the submission of a certified copy of the order.
JUDGMENT :
1. Instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant assailing the order dated 06/10/2015 passed by the trial court by which the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit before the trial court along with temporary injunction application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC against the defendants-respondents. It was pleaded in the temporary injunction application that the land bearing Khasra No. 1692 Rakba 2 Biswa; Khasra No. 1692 Rakba 2 Biswa and Khasra No. 2580 Rakba 18 Bigha 10 Biswa situated in village Udai Kalan, Tehsil Gangapur City was recorded in the Khatedari of Isar S/o Jemla and after death of Isar, Khatedari equally devolved in the name of Ranjeeta and Moti and after death of Moti, Khatedari of his 1/2 share of the land, was recorded in the name of his sons i.e. the plaintiff-appellant herein (Ramswaroop) and Raju Lal (defendant No.1) equally i.e. 1/4th share each. It was further pleaded that thereafter the plaintiff-appellant was adopted by Ranjeeta and after death of Ranjeeta his 1/2 share in the Khatedari land devolved upon the plaintiff-appellant and thus he became Khatedar of ⅓th share of the land while the defendant No. 1 became Khatedar of 1/4th share in the land and they both were cultivating the land accordingly for last more than 37 years on their 3/4th and 1/4th share in the land respectively and the land was not yet partitioned and was still undivided. It was further pleaded that the defendant-respondent No. 1 in a fraudulent and illegal manner, recorded 1/2 share of the land in question in his name whereas he had only 1/4th share in the land in question. It was further asserted that revenue suit is also pending before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Gangapur City in between both the parties wherein status quo order was passed which is still in force but even then, in order to cause loss to the plaintiff-appellant, despite pendency of the revenue suit and status quo order being in operation, the defendant-respondent No.1 sold the disputed land through registered sale deed dated 20/04/2012 to the defendant-respondents No. 2 & 3 and the said sale deed, being collusive and void in nature, is not binding on the plaintiff-appellant and now in the garb of the said alleged sale deed, the defendants-respondents are bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant and raise construction on the disputed land and to further sale and alienate the same.
3. The defendants-respondents No. 1 to 3 filed reply separately to the temporary injunction application contending that after death of Isar, mutation was attested in the name of Moti being adopted son of Isar on 27/02/1978 and Ranjeeta had no concern with the disputed land and after death of Moti, the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent No. 1 have equal share in the land in dispute.
4. The defendant-respondent No. 6 (Nagar Palika) also filed separate reply contending that it was unnecessarily impleaded as party and prayed for rejection of the temporary injunction application so far as the Nagar Palika is concerned.
5. The trial court, after hearing arguments, rejected the temporary injunction application vide order impugned. Hence instant appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.
6. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the trial court is unjustified in rejecting the temporary injunction application as the appellant had made out a specific case. He further contends that the appellant herein was taken in adoption by Ranjeeta who had admittedly half share in the disputed property and not only that since real father of the appellant namely; Moti Lal died, therefore, the appellant became owner of full half share of Ranjeeta and 1/4th share out of the property owned by Moti Lal and thus, he became original owner of 3/4th share in the disputed property whereas Raju Lal (d
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
