Hon'ble JAIN, J.—In this matter, Smt. Lad Kanwar and respondent No.10 Chhajuram are the only contesting parties. Names of respondents Nos. 1 to 9 were deleted at the request of learned counsel for the appellant. In this civil misc. appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 26.11.2014, which was passed in Civil Misc. File No.31/2014 relating to Civil Suit No.37/2014(505/2014) by Addl. District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has dismissed the prayer for temporary injunction filed by Smt. Lad Kanwar against Ladu and others.

2. I have heard arguments of both the parties. It has been argued by the appellant that she was entitled to her share in the joint property of Hari Singh(father of Lad Kanwar), Jwala Singh and Nathu Singh, but Nathu Singh claiming to be the sole owner of the suit property had sold the suit property in the year 1967 to ancestors of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and then respondents Nos.1 to 4 further sold the suit property in the year 1999 on 21.8.1999 to ancestors of respondents Nos. 5 to 9 and then in the year 2012 on 23.7.2012 respondents Nos. 5 to 7 have further sold the suit property to respondent No.10. Suit for cancellation of those sale deeds has been filed by Smt. Lad Kanwar in the trial court and she wants that till the decision of Civil Suit No.505/2014. Suit property could not be allowed to be further sold to any other person otherwise complicacy will arise and it has also been prayed that a prima facie case exists in favour of the appellant. In support of the arguments appellant had submitted jamabandi Khatauni for Samvat Year 2037 to 2041 and also Khatauni Bandowast for Samvat Year 2010 to 2023 and Khasra Parivartansheel also for that period before the lower court. It has been argued that in all these documents Nathu Singh, Hari Singh and Jwala Singh sons of Sheo Sahai Singh Rao resident of Devpuria were mentioned as Kastkar. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that Hari Singh expired on 3.3.2006 and Smt. Mooli Kanwar widow of Hari Singh also expired on 14.1.2012. Lad Kanwar and respondents Nos. 12 to 16 are legal representatives of late Hari Singh. On that basis Smt. Lad Kanwar has prayed in this appeal that temporary injunction should be passed in her favour against respondent No.10 so that respondent No.10 may not further alienate the suit property, which is agricultural land situated in Village Dalpura Tehsil, Amer, District, Jaipur.

3. On the other hand, respondent No.10 claims to be bona fide purchaser of the suit property. It has been argued on his behalf that the suit property was sold by registered sale deed for the first time in the year 1967 on 7.6.1967. It has been argued that after 40-45 years the appellant has challenged the said sale deeds and so she cannot be given any relief. It has further been argued that amended Sections 6 & 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be given retrospective application to succession which had already been opened before the Amendment Act came into force.

4. The appellant relies upon the following rulings:-

(i) M/s Toyal Bros. vs. Gram Panchayat Chicharwari 1988 (1) RLR 850

(ii) Rajeshwer Shankar Choudhary @ Rajesh Choudhary & Anr. 2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 556

(iii) Mohd. Sadiq & Ors. vs. Abida & Ors. 2010(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1274

(iv) Kamal Kumar vs. Bheru Bux & Ors. 2011 WLC (Raj.) UC 442

5. In the aforesaid rulings ingredients of a prima facie case have been elaborated, in one case application for temporary injunction was dismissed but still the defendant was directed by the High Court that he will not be allowed to transfer the suit property during the pendency of the suit. It was held in that case, if the parties are not directed to maintain status quo regarding alienation of suit property then it will create unnecessary complications and it may multiply the proceedings.

6. Respondent No.10 has relied upon following rulings:-

(i) Vallabh Darshan Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan &

Click Here to Read the rest of this document