Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 861
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
DEVKANYA AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
SHYAMLAL AND ORS. – Respondent
CMA / 2626 / 2017
Mr. Bharat Devasi, Mr. Sandeep Saruparia
In possession disputes, maintaining status quo is essential to prevent obstruction in the use and enjoyment of property.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 - Temporary Injunction - Appeal against rejection of temporary injunction application - The appellants claimed lawful title and possession over the disputed property, while the respondents asserted their possession based on a prior sale-deed and revenue records - The trial court rejected the appellants' application for temporary injunction, leading to the present appeal - The court found both parties claiming possession and modified the trial court's order to maintain status quo regarding possession. (Paras 1, 4, 11)
(B) Possession - The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining status quo in possession disputes to prevent obstruction in the use and enjoyment of property. (Paras 4, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellants filed a Misc. Appeal against the rejection of their temporary injunction application concerning a property claimed by both parties, with the respondents asserting possession based on a registered sale-deed and revenue records.
Findings of Court:
The court found it just to direct both parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the property in question.
Issues: The main issues included the rightful possession of the property and the appropriateness of the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in disputes of possession, it is essential to maintain status quo to prevent any obstruction in the use and enjoyment of the property.
Result: The appeal is disposed of with a modification to maintain status quo regarding possession.
26/07/2024
1.The present Misc. Appeal has been filed against order dated 02.06.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Temporary Injunction Application Case No.06/2017 filed by the appellants, whereby, learned Court below has rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC.
2.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Court below has allowed the Temporary Injunction application of the respondents being Case No.61/2010 and rejected the (2 of 4) [CMA-2626/2017] Temporary Injunction application of the appellant being Case No.06/2017.
3.Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed on 17.07.2008 in which it was stated that the land in dispute was purchased by him through registered sale-deed. He further submits that the appellant has also pleaded that the land has been purchased by the appellant and is having a lawful title over it and is enjoying the possession of the property.
4.It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant is having the possession of the suit property and there is no interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect to the possession of the property in question, therefore, there is all the likelihood that the respondents shall cause obstruction in the use and enjoyment of the said property in question and, therefore, he prays that the parties may be directed to maintain status quo in respect to the possession of property in question.
5.He also submits that since the possession of the property is disputed and at the one hand, the appellants are contending their possession over the land while on the other hand, respondents claim to have possession of the suit property, therefore, the learned trial court ought to have granted interim order while directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property in question in respect to possession, however, the learned trial court has directed the parties to not to create third party rights and to maintain status quo in respect to the record of the suit property.
(3 of 4) [CMA-2626/2017]
6.Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently objects and submits that the possession of the suit property rests with the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff also submits that the respondent-plaintiff had preferred a suit along with an application bearing No.79/2006 under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahpura in respect to the same suit property. He also submits that respondent No.2 – Lalaram had stated that the suit property is in his name in the revenue record and on the basis of which he stated that the appellant No.1 - Devkanya has been issued a registered sale-deed of the disputed suit property.
7.Learned counsel also submits that after hearing the parties, the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahpura passed a temporary injunction order against the respondent No.2 – Lalaram to the effect that the land No.7944 & 7945 situated in Village Shahpura shall not be sold and further Sh. Shyamlal and Smt. Madhu shall enjoy the peaceful possession and respondent No.2 – Lalaram was directed not to create any obstruction in the use and enjoyment of the said land.
8.Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also submits that the said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahpura has not been challenged, which demonstrate that the respondent-
- plaintiff is having a possession of the suit property.
9.He also submits that the appellant has not challenged the rejection of the Temporary Injunction Application Case No.06/2017 filed by the appellant, which has been rejected by the learned trial court and thus, the appellant cannot pray before this Court for [CMA-2626/2017]
- (4 of 4) granting interim order for maintaining status quo in respect to the possession of the property in question.
