HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.477/2022

Raju S/o Sukhlal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Khiria, Tehsil

Sahbad, District Baran (Raj.).

----Appellant

Versus

1.

Amar S/o Madan Lal,

2.

Rakesh S/o Madan Lal,

3.

Ms. Arti D/o Madan Lal,

4.

Ms. Asha D/o Madan Lal,

5.

Smt. Radha Bai W/o Madan Lal,

All are Residents Of Bhilon Ka Mohalla, Shripura, Tehsil

Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.

---Defendants/Respondents

6.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Taleda, District

Bundi.

7.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub- Registrar, Taleda,

District Bundi.

8.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub- Registrar, Dabi, District

Bundi.

----Proforma – Defendants/Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr.Arvind Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Sohan

Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

23/02/2022

The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the

appellant challenging the order dated 24.12.2021, whereby,

application filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1

and 2 read-with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction

has been dismissed.

(2 of 4)

[CMA-477/2022]

Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Arvind Gupta

submitted that while considering the prima facie case, the Court

below could not have commented upon agreement to sell by

treating it as unstamped and unregistered, not covered in the

definition of conveyance.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant had clearly pleaded and proved prima facie before the

Court below that the original seller of the land had passed away in

the year 2015, thereafter, his legal heirs–defendants had agreed

to transfer the land in the name of the appellant after proper

mutation entries in the revenue record.

Learned counsel submitted that the appellant-plaintiff

filed the suit when the defendants refused to execute sale deed in

spite of mutation being opened in their favour.

Learned counsel submitted that neither there was delay

on the part of the appellant nor the admissibility of agreement to

sell was to be considered while deciding the application filed for

temporary injunction.

Learned counsel submitted that the agreement to sell

which was executed by the original seller of the land, had clearly

admitted about taking Rs.10 Lakh out of total consideration of

Rs.12 Lakh and the remaining amount of Rs.2 lakh was to be paid

within one year after the registered sale deed was to be executed.

Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had

clearly prima facie proved before the Court below that the

predecessor of defendants had handed over the possession and as

such, the appellant was in peaceful possession since agreement to

sell, was executed by him and he had paid the substantial amount

of Rs.10 Lakh.

(3 of 4)

[CMA-477/2022]

Learned counsel submitted that the Court below ought

to have considered these relevant aspects while deciding the

application and on the contrary, the Court below could not have

gone on a different reasoning of the agreement to sell, not proper

stamped and registered.

Learned counsel submitted that such findings of the

Court below will also affect the rights of the appellant when the

suit will be decided.

Learned counsel submitted that the issue of

admissibility of a document if is not proper stamped and

registered, cannot be a sole factor while deciding the application

of temporary injunction.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for

the appellant and perused the material available on record.

This Court finds that the Court below while considering

the prima facie case has given its reasoning and accordingly, the

temporary injunction has been dismissed.

This Court finds that when prima facie case is discussed

by the Court below, same is for the purpose of deciding the

temporary injunction application and such observation cannot be

treated as a part of find