SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2425

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Barkha, J
Smt. Mohini Dhaulakhandi – Appellant
Versus
Gopaldatt Dhaulakhandi – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Senior Counsel
For the Respondents: Counsel

ORDER

The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC challenging the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by 13th Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.13-A/2016, whereby her application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been rejected. The aforesaid application has been rejected primarily in view of the compromise decree passed in the earlier civil suit. While rejecting the application, the learned Trial Court has also observed that, in the application for grant of temporary injunction, the appellant has not specifically raised an apprehension that the respondents are trying to alienate the suit property. Observing so, the court has held that there is no prima facie case in favour of appellant for issuance of temporary injunction.

2 . The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that, the appellant, Smt. Mohini, being the daughter of Keshavdatt, shall have 1/5th share in the properties left by him. It is his submission that the appellant had only consented to the relinquishment of her share by Smt. Meenakshi in favour of Gopaldatt and Hemdatt and consequent withdrawal of criminal case by Smt. Meenakshi lodged against her and others. H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top