BEER SINGH Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC preferred against the order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court. The parties hereinafter shall be described as they were described before the Trial Court.

(2.) THE suit for declaration and temporary injunction was filed the plaintiffs, as the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is not binding on the plaintiffs and thus, does not transfer any title to the purchaser by defendant No. 2.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that late Kushal Singh and Bhuwneshwar Singh were the owners of 33.804 hectares of land and after their death, the land was recorded in the name of their successors. However, the widow of Kushal Singh, i.e., defendant No. 2 got her name mutated over the suit land. Though the widows by their cast do not succeed in their community and they are entitled for livelihood and maintenance only. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs did not object recording of the name of defendant No. 2 in the revenue records as they had good relationship and defendant No. 1 was never in possession of the suit property. On the instigation of defendant No. 1 on about 1-6-2003, defendant No. 2 applied for partition of the suit land as described in Schedule 'A'. The Nayab Tehsildar, Kharasiya vide order dated 9-9-2003 allotted disputed land of 2.247 hectares in the share of defendant No. 2 against which they preferred an appeal before S.D.O., Kharasiya which was dismissed vide order dated 29- 9-2003. During the pendency of the appeal before the S.D.O., Kharasiya vide sale deed dated 30-9-2003, the suit land was transferred by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,55,000.00. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs are in joint possession over the suit property since the time of their ancestors and this possession is continue even after execution of the transfer deed. Alongwith this civil suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction averring that the suit property was recorded in the name of plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and for the convenience they have partitioned the suit property between plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as the plaintiffs belonged to Gond community and Hindu Succession Law shall not be applicable and they are governed by the customs prevailing in their community in which widows and daughters do not succeed in the ancestral properties and agricultural land.