JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-applicant (for short 'the applicant') against the order dated 01.05.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Bharatpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 43/2023 titled as Chanderpal v. Prem Singh & Ors., whereby the trial court dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the applicant under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant had filed a suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents-non applicants (for short 'the non-applicants') and also filed a temporary injunction application, but trial court vide order dated 01.05.2023 wrongly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that property mentioned in the plaint was coparcenary joint Hindu family property of applicant and non-applicant Nos.1 to 6. After the death of the ancestor, the said property was received by non-applicant No. 1, wherein the applicant being a coparcener had 1/6th share. Non-applicant Nos.1 to 3 wanted to sell the plots but they have not given any share to the applicant. Presently left over coparcenary joint Hindu Family properties are Plot Nos.5, 43, 15, 16, 17A and B, wherein the applicant had 1/6th share. Till today, the properties have not been divided but trial court while dismissing the temporary injunction application wrongly came to the conclusion that the applicant had no prima facie case because property came to non-applicant No. 1 from the inheritance of his father Kishan Singh. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that disputed property being coparcenary joint Hindu Family property, the applicant had 1/6th share in it. So, till decision of the suit, non-applicants be restrained to alienate it and they be directed to maintain status quo.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 5889/2009 decided on 22.11.2019; (2) Ranganayakamma & Anr. v. K. S. Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3635/2008 decided on 16.05.2008; (3) K. C. Laxmana v. K. C. Chandrappa Gowda & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 2582/2010 decided on 19.04.2022 and (4) Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 5124/2019 decided on 01.07.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the non-applicants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the trial court rightly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the applicant. Prem Singh had divided these properties amongst his sons. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submitted that Plot Nos.15 and 18 came in the share of non-applicant No. 2. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submitted that applicant wanted to take illegal possession of Plot Nos.15, 18 etc. so, he had filed the present suit on wrong facts. Father of the applicant and non-applicant No. 2 Prem Singh is alive, so, applicant is not entitled to get divided the property, which was received by Prem Singh through inheritance. So, appeal be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the non-applicants.

6. It is an admitted position that Prem Singh got disputed property through inheritance. Applicant had no prima facie title in it. As per contention of non-applicants, applicant had not filed the suit for partition of other properties but he wanted to take possession of Plot Nos.15