KAMLESH KUMAR KESHARI Vs. MALTI DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's miscellaneous appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code of 1908) questioning the propriety of the order dated 05.08.2017 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja in Civil Suit No.A67/2011 whereby the plaintiff's application for issuance of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of 1908 has been rejected.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit claiming partition, separate possession, injunction and also for declaration that the registered deeds of sale executed by his father Madan Chand Keshari (defendant No.3), in favour of defendants be declared as null and void. It is pleaded in the plaint that the properties described in plaint Schedule 'A' were the self-acquired properties of his grandfather Ramdayal, who expired on 13.07.1966 and after his death, it was inherited by him along with his father Madan Chand Keshari, brother Dinesh Kumar Keshari, the defendant No.2 and mother Rukmini Devi. It is pleaded further that defendant No.3 Madan Chand, being a Karta of the family, has sold the properties described in plaint Schedule 'B' to different defendants without consent of the co-owners and even without any legal necessities as he left the house in 1998 and started living separately with one Tanabai @ Parvati Bai as his concubine and has sold the properties for immoral purposes. It is pleaded further that after the alienation of the plaint Schedule 'B' properties, the suit properties described in plaint Schedule 'C' alone are left and since defendant No.3 (Madan Chand Keshari) is trying to alienate the same for immoral purposes, therefore, the plaintiff has been constrained to file the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 03.08.2005.

(3.) It is pleaded further by way of amendment that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 has sold part of Kh.No.1021 admeasuring 1216 sq.ft. to defendant No.10 (Manish Kumar Gupta) by executing a registered deed of sale dated 31.01.2014 of plaint Schedule 'C', the suit property and, likewise has sold part of Kh.No.1054/1 admeasuring 1444 sq.ft. to defendant No.11 (Madhusudan Shukla), and therefore, their sales are also required to be declared as null and void as the same were executed for immoral purposes by him.