ORDER :

1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred against the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Civil Misc. Case No.11/2020, whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC filed by the plaintiff/appellant has been rejected and that of the defendants no.1 and 2 has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant Jugal Kishore filed a suit for declaration and partition along with an application for temporary injunction against the defendants/ respondents with the following averments :-

(i) The appellant’s grand father Laxminarayan Taparia and Banshi Lal Jhanwar, father of the respondent no.1 had joint business in the name of two firms namely, M/s. Banshilal Madanlal and M/s. Chandrabhan Laxminarayan. Both of them were relatives being Sala and Jija.

(ii) In Samwat 2007, both of them jointly took the disputed shop on rent and commenced a business in partnership in the name of M/s. Tarachand Nathmal. Shriram Somani was appointed as a Munim in the firm by the appellant’s grand father Laxminarayan Taparia who also happened to be a relative of Banshilal Jhanwar. The share in the said partnership firm was determined to be six annas for Shriram Somani, five annas for Laxminarayan Taparia and five annas jointly for Banshi Lal Jhanwar, Ganga Bishan, Madanlal and Malchand Jhanwar.

(iii) In Samwat 2019, to be specific, on 19.09.1962, the shop in question was purchased for a consideration of Rs.12,500/- and the complete consideration amount was paid by Laxminarayan through Munim Shriram Somani. However, Banshilal Jhanwar got the sale deed executed in favour of his grand son Nathmal Jhanwar (respondent no.1) without informing Laxminarayan, the appellant’s grand father of the same.

(iv) As Laxminarayan resided at Kolkatta, he was not aware of the sale deed having been executed in favour of Nathmal Jhanwar and came to know about the same in the month of July 1964 when he came to Jodhpur. Coming to know about the same, a written document was executed on 7.7.1964 with the interference of several Panchas of the Society and vide the said document, it was understood between the parties that Laxminarayan would be entitled to ½ share in the firm/shop. It was also understood that Laxminarayan would remain the owner of ½ share till his lifetime and after his death, the said share would devolve to his grand son Jugal Kishore (present plaintiff).

(v) In July 2020, Shivratan Taparia, brother of the present plaintiff Jugal Kishore, was restrained by respondent no.1 from entering the shop premises and hence, the cause of action for the present suit arose. The present suit was therefore filed for partition as well as injunction against the defendants.

3. The defendants, while filing reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC as preferred by the plaintiff, also preferred an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC praying for injunction in their favour. The case of the defendants no.1 and 2 was that Laxminarayan Taparia was never a partner in the firm and Shriram Somani was never appointed Munim in the firm, rather he was a partner with six annas share. The sale deed was got executed in favour of Nathmal as the property was purchased by Nathmal himself and hence, was his self acquired property. The consideration for the shop was not paid by Laxminarayan Taparia but the shop was self acquired property of defendant no.1 Nathmal. The alleged written understanding dated 7.7.1964 is a forged document and the alleged signature of defendant no.1 Nathmal on the same is also forged.

4. The learned Court below, on basis of the averments made in the respective applications, observed that the document dated 7.7.1964 did not bear the signature of Banshilal Jhanwar and neither did it bear the signatures of the so-called Panchas in whose presence, the document was alleged to have been executed. The Court below held that even if the said document is taken into consi