HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2195/2021

1 !

Smt. Kiran Devi W/o Late Sh. Ganesh Singh, Aged About

60 Years, R/o Plot No. 34 And 35 Gopinagar, Manbag,

Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur (Raj.)

2.

Smt. Sangeeta Devi D/o Late Sh. Ganesh Singh And Kiran

Devi, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No. 34 And 35

Gopinagar, Manbag, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur (Raj.)

Smt. Jyoti

Ganesh Singh And

20 Years,

" 8

$ z , , . -

.54 And 35 Gopinagar, ManzbaqJqisinghpura

%&*

%& ,?Jk

,v

-Y

s Qyam

L

'.- t

S/o Unknown (Said Husband Of Smt.

About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. 34 And 35

Manbag, Jaisinghpuragl$&~r@$aipur

(Raj.)

----Appellants

Mo hit Ku~nar

e Sh. Ganesh Singh,

nd 35 Gopinagar,

S/o Sh. Late Ganesh

or Through Kudrati Wali

Mata Sml:. Rek

. Ganesh Singh, R/o

Plot No. 34 A

g, Jaisinghpura Khor,

Smt. Rekha D

sh Singh, Aged About

35 Years, R/o

Gopinagar, Manbag,

Jaisinghpura

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

: Mr. LM Bhardwaj, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Judqment

This appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants

(for short 'the defendants') against the order dated 31.08.2021

passed by the trial Court, whereby the application for temporary

injunction filed by the respondents-plaintiffs-applicants (for short

'the plaintiffs-applicants') has been allowed.

Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-applicants filed

a suit for partition of property, grant of means profit, mandatory

of Ganesh Singh. Ganesh S

on 27.10.2019. It was

also averred that la

ed his first marriage

with defendant No.

ck defendant No. 2

was born. With th

No. I,

Ganesh Singh

cant No. 3. It was also

the ownership of

solemnized his marri

averred that plots No

Ganesh Singh in whic

wate.r boring was d(. )r&-;"" yjj

y&c4@fs

partition of movable pro,p&Ays

&;,

~m&~tion

was taken and a

f Ganesh Singh, no

vable property of late

*%

Ganesh Singh took pla

iaFqgfplicants are residing in

'

?* "

the suit property during the life time of Ganesh Singh. I n the

property of Ganesh Singh, the plaintiffs-applicants are having 112

undivided share. The defendants malafidely want to dispossess the

plaintiffs-applicants from the suit property.

The non-applicants - defendants filed reply to the said

application and it was averred that the applicants had no concern

with late Ganesh Singh (husband of the defendant No. 1). The

defendant No. 1 and 2 are the successors of late Ganesh Singh. It

was also denied that the suit property was not in the name of late

Ganesh Singh but it is a self-acquire property of defendant No. I

which was purchased by the defendant No.1 through agreement to

sell dated 13.08.2001. The possession of the applicants in the suit

property is as tenants. There is no prima facie case balance of

convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiffs-

applicants, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

defendants.

Learned

s submits that the

plaintiffs-applicants

ument to show that

the property in questi

anesh Singh nor they

are filed any docume

at they are the legal

representatives of Ganes

roperty was purchased by

the defendant No. I

t

sell dated 13.08.2001.

The plaintiffs-applica

f the defendants and

they have no concern

Singh. However, the

-4

"2%.

learned trial Court has

aspect of the matter.

Hence the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be

quashed and set aside.

Heard. Considered.

From a perusal of the material available on record, it

transpires that in reply to the application, the defendants admitted

that the 'plaintiffs-applicants are in possession of the suit property.

I n this view of the matter, the Trial Court observed that whether

the plaintiffs-applicants are in th~possession of the suit property

as a tenant or being the sons and wife of late Ganesh Singh, is a

disputed question of fact, which can be decided a t the time of

adjudicating the origin