Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The appellant-a poor widow-is pitted against the former Maharaja of Kota-the respondent before this Court. She seeks the refuge of this Court in order to protect her alleged property from the Maharajas muscle men. She is challenging the Order dated 28.1.06, passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Kota whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellants second temporary injunction application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as `the Code, for short).

(2). The factual matrix of the case is rather chequered. According to the appellant, her late husband used to be a ``Poddar of the Late Maharao Bhim Singhji of Kota, (henceforth to be referred to as `the Late Maharao, for short), the father of the Respondent No. 1. The post of ``Poddar used to be an office of status and confidence in the State times. It seems in 1980, agricultural land belonging to the Late Maharao, situated in Khasra No. 433, 434, 436 to 487, 491, 498/684 and 546/691, all measuring about 80 bighas, situated in Village Rampura, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota was given to the appellants husband for cultivation. With the end of the princely state, this land belonging to late Maharao Bhim Singh Ji came under Urban Land Ceiling Act as adopted by the Rajasthan State. The Late Maharao approached the State Government to grant exemption of this land under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Consequently, the State Government exempted the said land in favour of the Khatedar vide its order dated 24.2.1990, but imposed a condition that the Khatedar would get a housing scheme approved by the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (henceforth to be referred to as `the U.I.T., for short) and sell/allot plots to persons of weaker section of the society. Thereafter, the Late Maharao entered into an oral contract on 26.2.1990 with the appellant and agreed to sell the entire land, mentioned above, to her for a total consideration of Rs. 12 lacs. However, it was agreed that the responsibility of getting the scheme approved by the U.I.T., Kota would be taken up by the Late Maharao himself. According to the appellant, the said amount of Rs. 12 lacs was paid by her to the Late Maharao. Therefore, she had performed her part of the contract. However, prior to getting the approval of the scheme from the U.I.T., the Late Maharao expired. In his place, the respondent No. 1, Maharao Brajraj Singh took over as the next ``ruler of Kota. Although the respondent No. 1 kept on assuring the appellant that the he will obtain the approval of the scheme from the U.I.T., but he failed to do so. In 1990, the Government of Rajasthan repealed the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The appellant approached the respondent No. 1 for getting a sale deed executed, but he failed to do so. According to the appellant, she has been in the cultivatory possession of the said land since 1980 and she has been cultivating the land on ``Munafa.

(3). With escalation of prices of land in Kota, the respondent No. 1 decided to oust the appellant from the big chunk of land. According to the appellant, on 20.1.2000 certain anti-social elements entered her land and tried to throw her out of the land. She filed a report with the police, which was registered as FIR No. 37/2000 for offense under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth to be referred to as `the I.P.C., for short). Although, subsequently the police filed a negative Final Report, but in the negative F.R., it clearly mentioned that ``the complainant (the appellant before this Court) is in possession of the disputed land, but the legal owners of the land are the opposite parties, who have a right to enter on the land and look after the same as a natural consequence of ownership, as such there is a dispute with regard to ownership, which does not fall within the mischief of the Penal Law and as such FR is being submitted for non-occurrence and the matter being a civil nature.

(4). Since the resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document