Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 26967
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
NITYA VERMA – Appellant
Versus
SANGEETA VERMA – Respondent
CMA / 1898 / 2024
Mr. Bhanu Prakash Mathur.
The court affirmed that property jointly purchased is not ancestral, and appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 - Appeal against rejection of temporary injunction application - Appellants sought to restrain respondents from dispossessing them from ancestral property - Trial Court found property was self-acquired, not ancestral, and rejected the application. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Ancestral Property - Definition and ownership - The court ruled that the property in question was not ancestral as it was jointly purchased and willed, thus no prima facie case was established by the appellants. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellants filed for partition and injunction regarding a house in Jodhpur, claiming it as ancestral property, but the respondents contended it was self-acquired. The Trial Court found no merit in the appellants' claims.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court correctly determined that the suit property was not ancestral and that the appellants had no claim to it.
Issues: The main issues were whether the property was ancestral and whether the appellants had a prima facie case for injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Trial Court's finding that the property was self-acquired and that the appellants failed to prove their claim.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Order
1. The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred the instant misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC, 1908 challenging the validity of the order dated 28.05.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, (‘Trial Court’) in Civil Misc. Application No.143/2024 (NCV No.143/2024), whereby the application preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule
1 & 2 CPC, has been rejected.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition, cancellation of deeds and permanent injunction with respect to suit property, which is a house situated at Jodhpur. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed seeking a restraint order against the respondents/defendants with respect to suit property. In the application, it was stated that the suit property was the ancestral property, however, father and husband of appellant No.1 and No.2 respectively, late Sh. Praveen Verma relinquished his share in the suit property in favour of Smt. Shakuntala, against the interest of appellant No.1. In the application, it was stated that in a suit filed by the appellant No.1 for permanent injunction and cancellation of deed, an interim order dated 17.07.2021 was passed restraining the respondents/defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and also directed to maintain status quo, however, despite interim order being passed, when the defendants did not comply with the said order, an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was filed, which was pending adjudication. It was stated that father of appellant No.1 and husband of appellant No.2, Sh. Praveen Verma, expired on 25.02.2024 and after death of Sh. Praveen Verma, there was no accommodation available to the appellants. It was thus prayed that during pendency of the suit, the respondents/defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and they be further restrained from selling or alienating the suit property.
3. The respondents/defendants, after being serviced with the summons of the suit and application for temporary injunction, filed reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. In the reply, the respondents/defendants stated that the in the suit property the plaintiffs have no right over the suit property, inasmuch as the same was not ancestral property. It was stated that the suit property was jointly purchased by late Sh. Gyanendra Kumar Verma and late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, from their income from one Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sh. Rajesh Kumar by way of registered sale-deed dated 12.12.1986. After death of Sh. Gyanendra Kumar Verma, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Shailesh Verma, Praveen Verma and Ms. Sushma Arora being the legal representatives of late Sh. Gyanendra Kumar Verma were in possession of the suit property. Thereafter, the sons and daughter of late Sh. Gyanendra Kumar Verma executed a relinquishment deed in favour of their mother Smt. Shakuntala Devi on 18.07.2018. It was further stated that Smt. Shakuntala Devi, willed the suit property in favour of her son Sh. Shailesh Verma by way of registered Will dated 20.07.2018 and thereafter Smt. Shakuntala Devi expired on 30.04.2021. Thereafter, on the basis of registered Will dated 20.07.2018, Sh. Shailesh Verma acquired all the rights over the suit property and he became the sole owner of the suit property. In the reply, it was stated that Sh. Shailesh Verma expired in the year 2021 i.e. on 05.05.2021 and thereafter the legal representatives of Sh. Shailesh Verma i.e. defendants No.2 and 3 relinquished their share in favour of their mother Smt.
Sangeeta, defendant No.1 vide relinquishment deed dated 01.06.2021 and Smt. Sangeeta became the sole owner of the suit property. It was further stated that plaintiffs are not having any right or share in the suit property and in fact the plaintiffs were not in possession of
