JUDGMENT :

NAKENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.:— Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant- non-applicant (for short ‘the non-applicant’) against the order dated 29.04.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2019 (49/2018, 80/2018), whereby the temporary injunction filed by the respondent No. 1-applicant (for short ‘the applicant’) has been allowed.

2. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant submits that the trial court wrongly allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the applicant. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that disputed property was purchased in the name of Shyola on account of eldest son of the family. That property was purchased from joint Hindu family income and not from personal income of Shyola. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that three sons of the Ladu Ram had executed the partition deed dated 11.10.1980 in which they clearly stated that the disputed property was joint Hindu family property. They filed a suit for partition before the Revenue Court. Revenue Court passed the decree on 03.06.1995. The said decree was challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority and Revenue Appellate Authority remanded the matter to Sub Divisional Officer, Amer to decide the matter afresh vide order dated 13.11.1996. After that, SDO, Amer passed the decree on 22.02.2001. The said decree was also challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 30.8.2005. Order dated 30.8.2005 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority was further challenged before the Board of Revenue and the said appeal was also dismissed on 19.03.2020. The said order was not challenged before High Court. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant, also submits that the trial court while deciding the prima facie case wrongly came to the conclusion that questions whether the said partition deed was valid or not and being unregistered is admissible in evidence or not and whether disputed property was purchased by Shyola from his personal income or not, would be decided after taking the evidence.

3. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that Shyola himself admitted this fact in the partition deed as well as before the Revenue Court that disputed property was joint Hindu family property.

4. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that Kanhaiyalal father of applicant had not challenged the said order. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that 10 Bigha land was acquired by National Highway Authority out of disputed land for which compensation was awarded and compensation was received by three sons of Ladu Ram in equal shares.

5. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that three sons of Shyola had sold their share of land to Vijaypura Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti considering the fact that Shyola had 1/3rd share in the disputed land. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that applicant also got the electricity connection in their Godown by submitting Jamabandi in the year 2016.

6. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that disputed land was partitioned 38 years ago. Instead of challenging the order of the Revenue Board, applicant challenged the decree dated 22.02.2001 passed by the SDO on wrong facts. There is no evidence that said decree was obtained by way of fraud or misrepresentation. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that suit for partition was also pending before the Additional Collector, Amer regarding same land.