JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal has been filed filed by the plaintiffs-applicants-appellants (for short ‘the applicants’) against the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Additional District & Judge No.9, Jaipur Metro-II, Jaipur in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.10/2023 (CIS No.131/2023) titled as “Rajmata Padmini Devi & Ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.”, whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the trial court has wrongly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants. Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that as per the Covenant, the building known as “Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha)” was a part of City Place. It was shown as private property of His Highness, Jaipur and preserved for future successors of Maharaja, Jaipur. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that the non-applicants were licensee in the property because owner-ship of the property-in-question vested in Maharaja, Jaipur. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that at present, Vidhan Sabha is not functioning in the disputed property because the Vidhan Sabha has been transferred/shifted in new building. The non-applicants want to alienate the property-in-question. So, status quo order be passed regarding the property-in-question.

3. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that the non-applicants are licensee in the disputed property and their license has already been terminated. Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that the purpose for which the disputed properties was given to the applicants has been extinguished because of transferring/shifting the Vidhan Sabha in new building.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that the trial court while deciding the temporary injunction application considered the prima facie case and also gave the finding that whether the non-applicants are licensee or not and the purpose for which the property was given has been extinguished or not, are triable issues which would be decided in the suit. So, the trial court had to pass the status-quo order regarding the property-in-question.

5. Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that the property-in-question was used as Vidhan Sabha but once Vidhan Sabha was transferred/shifted in new constructed building, then license granted to use the said property automatically came to an end. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that as per the Covenant, it is crystal clear that these properties are private properties of His Highness. Various correspondences took place between the representatives of His Highness and officials of the non-applicants, in which officials also sought explanation regarding title of the properties. So, it cannot be said that the non-applicants had absolute right in these properties. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that as per the Covenant, no title was transferred to the State and no tenancy right was created.

6. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that the non-applicants had filed the objections regarding non-maintainability of the suit. The said application was also dismissed by the trial court and matter is subjudice before this Court. Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7133/2004 titled as Satish Kumar Parik Vs. State Of Rajasthan, this court held that property-in-question/building are of the applicants. So, the order of the trial court be set and aside and non-applicants be directed not to create third party right interest and/or to alienate the disputed property and maintain status-quo regarding the property-in-question.

7. Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that the non-applicants wanted to construct Museum there and they have wast