Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Vinod Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Maniram and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17657 of 2023
Decided On : 14-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajender Kumar Soni, Advocate.

For a temporary injunction, the applicant must establish prima facie entitlement based on possession, which was not demonstrated in this case.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Writ petition for quashing orders of lower courts - The petitioner sought a temporary injunction for land possession based on a Will dated 08.05.2001 - The lower courts dismissed the application, stating lack of prima facie evidence of possession - The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, citing absence of mutation application and evidence of possession. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 10, 12)

(B) Temporary Injunction - Requirements for granting - The courts must consider prima facie entitlement to relief rather than final rights - The absence of mutation application was improperly emphasized. (Paras 6, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents regarding agricultural land, claiming ownership through a Will. The application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found no evidence of possession by the petitioner based on the Will and upheld the lower courts' decisions.

Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner had established prima facie possession of the disputed property based on the Will and the appropriateness of the lower courts' dismissal of the injunction application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of evidence regarding possession and failure to apply for mutation undermined the petitioner's claim, confirming that temporary injunctions require clear prima facie evidence.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"that the writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs and the impugned Order passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Sadulshahar, District Sri. Ganganagar on 03/08/2023 (Annexure-5) as well as the order dated 26/05/2023 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar may kindly be quashed and set-aside and application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2019 Vinod Kumar v. Maniram & Anr. may kindly be allowed as prayed."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit (Annexure-1) for permanent injunction against the defendant respondents before learned Civil Judge, Sadulshahar. The plaintiff-petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 of C.P.C. for temporary injunction while praying that till final disposal of the suit, the respondents Maniram S/o Shri. Sahiram and Saroj W/o Shri. Maniram may be restrained from interfering in the land in dispute in possession of petitioner-Vinod Kumar, Prithviraj and Sahebram situated at Tehsil Sadulshahar's Chak No. 39MM of Khata No. 66/5813 Bigha, 4 Bigha in Khata No. 65/56 and 1.467 Hectare Nahri in the same Chak Khata No. 54/46 and 4.680 Hectare in Chak No. 40 MM Khata No. 97/95 Nahri total chaks had 10.157 hectares of canal land, District Sri. Ganganagar mentioned in the Will dated 08.05.2001 and also maintain status of the record as it is.

3. The learned trial court vide Order dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure-4) after hearing the arguments of counsel for the parties, dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 of C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 26.05.2023 (Annexure-4) preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sadulshahar, District Sri. Ganganagar which was dismissed and the order dated 26.05.2023 was affirmed vide Order dated 03.08.2023. (Annexure-5.)

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Order passed by the learned Appellate Court on 03.08.2023 (Annexure-5) affirming the Order dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned trial court by which the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. of the plaintiff for temporary injunction has been dismissed, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Court have committed a grave legal error in dismissing the application for temporary injunction only on the ground that the plaintiff or his father have not proceeded for mutation on the basis of 'Will' dated 08.05.2001 which has came into force w.e.f. 23.12.2007 after the death of Sahiram. He further submits that to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C., the learned trial court was only required to consider whether prima facie, the plaintiff is entitled to status-quo on the basis of Will dated 08.05.2001 executed by his grandfather late Sahi Ram in favour of his father Brijlal, Prithviraj and Sahabram and the prima facie question of mutation in revenue record was not required to be decided at this stage.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the possession of the disputed property is not with the respondents, the possession of the same is with the petitioner, Prithviraj and Sahabram and the learned trial court has ignored the documents submitted by the petitioner regarding the possession as an evidence, viz-a-viz the letter dated 25.04.2017 of Water Consumers Association BK 44, receipts for payment of irrigation tax by the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that both the learned c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document