Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The appellants, Barkat Khan and Ram Kumar, are aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent plaintiff, Shimala @ Seeema, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Smt. Shimla @ Seema had filed a suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of sale-deed dated 4.7.2012 wherein she had claimed that she is the daughter of appellant Floating Frame No. 2, Ram Kumar. She further claimed that her family owns an agricultural land measuring about nine bighas. The said land is ancestral in nature. However, her father, Ram Kumar, has sold the said land to Barkat Khan (appellant No.1 before this Court), by sale-deed dated 4.7.2012. According to her, as the Karta of the family, Ram Kumar did not have the right to sell the ancestral land. Along with the suit, she filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC wherein she claimed that she is in possession of the land in dispute. She further claimed that on the said land, there is a house consisting of two rooms, veranda, kitchen and bathroom, which is under her possession. Therefore, she prayed for temporary injunction against Barkat Khan and Ram Kumar.

3. Barkat Khan filed a reply and claimed that he had bought the said land through a registered sale-deed on 4.7.2012. At the time of registering of the sale-deed, the possession of the land was given to him. He further claimed that despite the fact that respondent-plaintiff is a married daughter, she has ille-gally trespassed on the land. Thus, she is not entitled to injunction against him.

4. Ram Kumar claimed that the land was self acquired property and denied the fact that it was an ancestral property. He further claimed that he had the right to legally sell the land in favour of Barkat Khan.

5. After hearing both the parties, by order dated 27.7.2012, the learned Judge granted the temporary injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff. Hence this appeal before this Court.

6. Mr. Nitin Trivedi, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, has raised the following contentions: firstly, the respondent has not produced any evidence to establish the fact that the property is ancestral one. Secondly, she has not shown any evidence to establish that she is in possession of the land in dispute. Thus, she has failed to establish a strong prima facie case in her favour. Despite the absence of existence of a prima facie case, the learned Judge has granted injunction in her favour. Thirdly, since the possession follows the title, since the title has been transferred from Ram Kumar to Barkat Khan, the Court should presume that the possession is with Barkat Khan, appellant No. 1. Fourthly, the respondent-plaintiff has already filed a suit for declaration of her share in the ancestral property before the SDO. Until and unless, she wins in the said revenue suit, she does not have the right to challenge the sale-deed. For, she has not filed any suit for possession and declaration. Lastly, even if she were to win, she would be entitled to one-fifth share. Therefore, the injunction could not have been passed against the entire property.

7. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, has raised by the following contentions before this court: firstly, Jamabandi has been submitted before the trial Court in order to establish the fact that the land was ancestral in nature. Moreover, according to reply, submitted by the respondent's father, he had claimed that the land is in the name of his uncle and him. This also points to the facts that the land is ancestral land in nature.

8. Secondly, the respondent had submitted a large number of affidavits of her neighbours and of her husband in order to show that she is in possession of thee land in dispute.

9. Thirdly, as the respondent is a member of a Hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document