By the Court.—This appeal challenges the validity and correctness of the and order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 1, Aligarh in Original Suit No. 1918 of 2012, Jai Shree Devi v. Smt. Rajwati, whereby application No. 7C2 of the appellant preferred by her under Section 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. for temporary injunction has been rejected.

2. The appellant has sought the relief of quashing the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2012 and has further prayed to direct the opposite party/defendant not to interfere in her peaceful possession of the appellant over the land in dispute.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff is the original holder of the land of area 1.728 hectare and Khata No. 17, Gata No. 128 Mi, total area 1.728 hectare situated at village-Haivatur, Pargana and Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh. It is stated that on 15.9.2012 at 1.00 O’clock, Govind Sharma son of Mahesh Chandra Sharma took the appellant/plaintiff at Tehsil-Khair, District Aligarh and with collusion and mala fide intention to deceive her, got a sale deed executed in favour of opposite party/defendant for Khata No. 17 and Gata No. 128Mi area 0.536 hectare. The appellant/plaintiff has no knowledge about the sale deed as she is not mentally fit and is not able to think being a patient of neuropsychiatric under the treatment of Dr. Anil Gaur, Neuropsychiatric for last 8-9 months. After the forged sale deed was got executed in favour of opposite party/defendant, along with her family members they went at the Civil Court and prepared a notary certificate on 27.9.2012.

5. There was no occasion to get the notary certificate executed particularly when the sale deed had already been executed in which the signature/thump impression of the appellant-plaintiff and the sons had been taken. This is also stated that son of the appellant Navneet is a drunker and another Kallu is a minor.

6. It is alleged that Mohan Swaroop Sharma the real brother of the appellant-plaintiff made an application before the S.S.P. Aligarh stating facts and circumstances and also alleged forged act of the opposite party-defendant praying to direct the police station concerned to lodge FIR and investigate the matter but no action was taken. Aggrieved her brother filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the A.C.J.M. Court No. 1, Aligarh which was treated as a complaint case; that Khatauni No. 1416 to 1424-F of village Haivatpur, Pargana and Tehsil-Khair, clearly shows that the appellant-plaintiff alongwith her sons is the owner of land of area 1.7280 of Gata No. 128Mi, Khata No. 128. The copy of the Khasara which has been issued on 25.9.2012 also proves that the crops have been shown by the appellant-plaintiff and her sons in the said area.

7. The appellant has relied upon the discharge certificate, which has been issued from the Mental Hospital, Agra showing that she had been under treatment of one Dr. Anil Gaur about for 8 to 9 months. It is also mentioned therein that old prescriptions had been lost by her. The discharge certificate for alleged period 19.12.2011 to 14.12.2012 has also been placed before us.

8. On the aforesaid averments and facts and circumstances appellant-plaintiff filed original O.S. No. 1918/2012, Jai Shri Devi v. Smt. Rajwati, before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Aligarh through Mohan Swaroop Sharma. The brother of the appellant-plaintiff has filed an affidavit in support of original suit in which she had prayed to the Court below to declare sale deed dated 15.9.12 executed in favour of opposite party-defendant as null and void said to have been executed by committing forgery and praying to restrain the opposite party-defendant in her peaceful possession nor to transfer or change the nature of land in dispute. Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151 Cr.P.C. was also filed in the suit praying temporary injunction. The Court fra