IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
Smt. Asmat Nazeer & others - Petitioners
Versus
Mohd. Umar & others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1104 of 2014 With Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 788 of 2014
Decided On : 27-01-2016
Civil Procedure Code - Rule 27 - Sale deed - Temporary injunction - Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants, wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and 4 are the sons of Late was also son - Defendant No. 2 is the widow and defendant No. 5 to 10 are children of Late have three houses - Plaintiffs pleaded building, which is situated, was given to him by way of will executed by his father - Plot, which is situated in west side of building was also orally gifted (Hiba) to him in presence of the witnesses - Demarcation of the land was also mentioned in the plaint - Defendant No, 4 filed a suit for division before the District and Session Judge against legal representatives of which is still pending before the court. Late and defendant No. 1 prepared a false sale deed in respect of disputed plot, which is situated in west side of building - Did not execute any sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1. filed a suit before the Additional District Judge for division of above mentioned disputed plot wherein the defendant No. 1 filed the written statement and mentioned in respect of the sale deed, then the fact towards the sale deed came in knowledge of plaintiff - Held, agreement of compromise executed sons and widow son and widow has also been placed on record wherein they have acknowledged the disputed plot to be that of the defendant-appellant and they have agreed not to pass through the way which was going through the disputed plot, to access Building - While, there is registered sale deed in favour of the defendant-appellant which was drafted by Advocate and possession of the disputed land has been handed over to the defendant-appellant - Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed after lapse of 24 years whereas earlier, about the same land, there was litigation between the parties. In the present suit, the plaintiff-Respondent No.1 has come out with a very week plea that his father orally gifted (Hiba) disputed land to him that too three years after execution of the sale deed - kind of case set up by Respondent No. 1-plaintiff cannot be said to make out prima facie case in his favour rather it shows that case of the defendants-appellants stands on better footings and balance of convenience also lies in their favour - Impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained - Appeal is partly allowed.
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendant No. 1 and 5 to 10 assailing the order dated 10.02.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Tonk (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby application filed by Respondent No.1-plaintiff seeking temporary injunction has been allowed.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 09.02.1989 and permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants, wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and 4 are the sons of Late Mohd. Shafeeq. Mohd. Shakeel was also son of Mohd. Shafeeq. The defendant No. 2 is the widow and defendant No. 5 to 10 are children of Mohd. Shafeeq. Late Mohd. Shafeeq have three houses situated in Tonk, The plaintiffs pleaded that Shakeela building, which is situated in Karigaron ka Mohalla, was given to him by way of will executed by his father Mohd Shafeeq on 25.08.1990. Thereafter, the plot, which is situated in west side of Shakeela building was also orally gifted (Hiba) to him on 21.04.1992 in presence of the witnesses. The demarcation of the land was also mentioned in the plaint. The defendant No, 4 Raeis Khan filed a suit for division before the District and Session Judge Tonk against the legal representatives of Mohd. Shafeeq, which is still pending before the court. Late Mohd. Shakeel and defendant No. 1 prepared a false sale deed in respect of disputed plot, which is situated in west side of Shakeela building on 09.02.1989. Mohd. Shafeeq did not execute any sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1. Mohd. Raeis filed a suit no. 38/2011 before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Tonk for division of above mentioned disputed plot wherein the defendant No. 1 filed the written statement and mentioned in respect of the sale deed dated 09.02.1989, then the fact towards the sale deed came in knowledge of plaintiff.
2. The defendant No. 1 and 5 to 10-appellants filed written statement and denied the contents of the plaint and stated that the Mohd. Shafeeq sold the land to defendant No. 1 for consideration of Rs.5,000/- on 09.02.1989 and handed over the possession of the land. Mohd. Shafeeq put his signatures in Urdu and Hindi languages on the sale deed. The sale deed was drafted by Advocate Abdul Kadir and he also put his signature on the sale deed. The defendant no. 1 has the possession on the land since the date of sale deed 09.02.1989. The plaintiff Mohd. Umar executed a registered gift (Hliba) on dated 19.11.2004 in favour of his wife for Shakila building on the basis of the will dated 25.08.1990, which was executed by Mohd. Shafeeq. It is mentioned in the map which is enclosed with the registered gift (Hiba) dated 19.11.2004 that the disputed land belongs to his father Mohd. Shafeeq. The map did not disclose that the land belongs to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the Mohd. Raeis also filed a suit no. 26/2005 (Mohd. Raeis v. Mohd. Shakeel) wherein the disputed property was not shown with the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the Municipality also had given permission to Defendant no. 1 for construction on disputed land on 26.01.2002. Mohd. Raeis also filed a suit no. 38/2011 (Mohd. Raeis v. Mohd. Shakeel) wherein the defendant no. 3 Mohd. Aarif filed a reply on 21.07.2011 and admitted that his father Late Mohd. Shafeeq sold the land to defendant No. 1. Mohd. Raeis defendant No. 4 filed an application for withdrawal of suit no. 38/ 2011, wherein it was mentioned that his father Late Mohd. Shafeeq sold the land to defendant no. 1 for consideration of Rs.5,000/- on 09.02.1989. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff lodged an F.I.R. No. 372/2012 for the offence under Sections 420, 468 I.P.C. against the defendant No.1 and other persons in respect of the sale deed dated 09.02.1989, wherein the police during the investigation found that the plaintiff lodged the false F.I.R
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.