Heard

Sri.

Girish

A.Yadawad,

learned

counsel

appearing for the appellant and Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata

Bangi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order XLIII

Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the

CPC’) is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 148/2022 on the

file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Belagavi

(for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

3.

The application, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of

CPC, filed by the plaintiff/appellant in the aforementioned

suit, seeking temporary injunction is rejected by the Trial

Court.

- 3 -

4.

Few admitted facts may be summarized as

under:

(a) The appellant is the wife of one Annasaheb Chougale.

The appellant claims that her husband has executed a

registered gift deed in her favour on 27.09.2021. Based

on the gift deed, the appellant claims that she is the

owner and in possession of the properties covered

under the gift deed.

(b) The respondents before this Court, who are the

defendants before the Trial Court, contend that the gift

is fictitious. It is contended by the defendants that on

28.11.2020, there was an agreement for sale executed

in favour of respondent No.2 by the husband of the

plaintiff. Respondent No.2 contends that, afterwards,

on 14.02.2022, the husband of the present appellant

executed a registered sale deed in his favour for a

valuable consideration and based on the sale deed,

respondent No.2 has acquired ownership and is in

- 4 -

possession of the properties covered under the sale

deed.

(c) The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants

on 24.03.2022 i.e., after the execution of the

registered sale deed. It is stated that the registration of

the said sale deed was kept pending. The Trial Court

has refused to grant temporary injunction and the Trial

Court has noticed the following factors:

The husband has filed a suit challenging the gift

deed in favour of his wife and that a registered sale

deed is also executed in favour of respondent No.2 by

the husband of the plaintiff.

Hence, the Trial Court has concluded that the plaintiff has

not made out a prima facie case.

5.

Sri. Girish A.Yadawad, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant submits that, prima facie, the registered

gift deed executed by Annasaheb Chougule (husband of the

plaintiff) in favour of the his wife (plaintiff) would disclose

- 5 -

that the ownership is transferred in favour of the plaintiff

and possession is also transferred. He would further submit

that since the gift deed is executed on 27.09.2021, the

husband of the plaintiff had no right to execute a sale deed

in favour of respondent No.2 on 14.02.2022. Under these

circumstances, he would submit that the Trial Court is not

justified in rejecting the application seeking temporary

injunction.

6.

Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents would submit that the

husband of the plaintiff has filed a suit challenging the

execution of gift deed and that itself would indicate that the

gift deed is not acted upon and the possession is not

transferred. He also submits that the husband of the

plaintiff was an agreement holder under the agreement of

sale

dated

28.11.2020

and,

pursuant

to

the

said

agreement, a sale deed was executed in favour of

respondent No.2 on 14.02.2022, and that though the

registration was kept pending, during the pendency of the

- 6 -

suit the registration has taken place and, as such, his title

and possession is established. He would further submit that

respondent NO.2, after purchasing the property, has

developed the suit schedule property and has formed a road

investing huge amount, which would indicate that the

plaintiff is not in possession of the property.

7.

This Court has considered the contentions raised

at the Bar. This Court has also perused the impugned order.

8.

From the impugned order, it is apparent that the

Trial Court has dismissed the application primarily on the

premise that the husband of th