JUDGMENT :

The present civil misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the order dated 11.8.2021 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.4, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No.10/2021 (CIS No.59/2021) whereby the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff claims that agricultural land bearing Aaraji number 889 and 1547 admeasuring 2.5300 hectares situated in revenue village Ambasa, Tehsil Jhadol (Phalasiya), District Udaipur was purchased in the name of respondent no. 1 as a joint family property in which the plaintiff-appellant contributed money. A family settlement took place and land bearing Aaraji number 889 admeasuring 1.2800 hectares was kept for the appellant. Subsequently, a family partition took place in which the land bearing Araji no. 889 admeasuring 1.2800 hectares and a house built thereupon came under the appellant’s share. However, the respondent no. 1 sold the said land to respondent nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff-appellant preferred a suit for cancellation of sale deed and grant of perpetual injunction along with an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating/transferring the suit property and maintaining the status quo.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that the appellant is the son of the respondent no.1 and was residing at Kuwait at the time of purchase of the agricultural land bearing Aaraji Nos.889 and 1547 ad measuring 2.5300 hectares at revenue village Ambasa, Tehsil Jhadol (Phalasiya), District Udaipur. The property was purchased in the name of respondent no. 1 as a joint family property for which the appellant has also contributed an initial sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, from time to time, the appellant sent money to respondent no. 1 on demand from Kuwait for construction of house upon the said property and for other expenses. Therefore, the property in question is a joint family property in which the plaintiff-appellant has a share. A dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent no.1 with respect to the suit property, which was settled on intervention of the eminent persons of the community and on 05.12.2010, a family partition took place in which the plaintiff-appellant was given possession of land bearing Aaraji No.889 ad measuring 1.2800 hectares alongwith a house constructed thereupon. The plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the suit property. Therefore, it is submitted that the trial Court has committed error in not finding any prima facie case in favor of the appellant-plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff also submitted that on 1.12.2020, the appellant came to know that the respondent no.1 has executed a sale deed with respect to the entire suit property in favor of defendants-respondents nos.2 and 3, which is prima facie unlawful as the suit property is not a self-acquired property of the respondent no. 1. It is submitted that such an act would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff-appellant as he would be precluded from enjoying his rights with respect to his share of the property. Therefore, the balance of convenience also lies in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and the trial Court committed grave illegality in rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Col. Ram Singh reported in AIR 1986 SC 3.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents submits that the property in question is not the joint family property and the same is a self-acquired property of the de