GHANPATI @ DHAPAT RAI AHUJA Vs. TARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 14.02.2012 passed by Civil Judge (SD), Haridwar in Original Suit No. 08 of 2012 whereby learned trial court was pleased to reject the application moved by the plaintiff / appellant, herein, seeking ad interim injunction.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff / appellant filed O.S. No. 8 of 2012 in the court of Civil Judge (SD), Haridwar (Ghanpati @ Dhanpat Rai Ahuja Vs. Tarun Kumar) seeking permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that defendant / respondent be restrained to make any interference in the possession of the plaintiff / appellant in House No. 515 consisting of five rooms on ground floor and five rooms on first floor along with toilet, bathroom. It is stated in the plaint that earlier Shyam Lal, son of Sohan Lal was owner and in possession of property, in question. Shyam Lal adopted plaintiff / appellant as son. Shyam Lal expired on 25.03.2012 and Raj Kumari, wife of Shyam Lal, adopted mother of plaintiff / appellant expired on 23.07.2009 and all the last rites of Shyam Lal and Raj Kumari were performed by the plaintiff / appellant, being their adopted son. It is further stated in the plaint that Raj Kumari had executed a WILL on 27.06.2009 in favour of the plaintiff / appellant. It is further stated that in the year 2010, Jyoti, started claiming her title over the property, in question, claiming herself to be daughter of Shyam Lal, therefore, plaintiff / appellant had filed suit being O.S. No. 123 of 2011. However, during the pendency of O.S. No. 123 of 2011, matter was settled between plaintiff / appellant and Jyoti and as per terms of settlement, three rooms on the ground floor were given to Jyoti and rest of the rooms at ground floor and 5 rooms on the first floor were given to plaintiff / appellant. After the settlement, O. S. No. 123 of 2011 was withdrawn by the plaintiff / appellant.

(3.) IN O.S. No. 08 of 2012, defendant / respondent has filed his reply to the ad interim injunction application, stating that he had purchased the entire property from Jyoti and Jyoti was owner and in possession of property, in question and now, defendant / respondent is owner and in possession of property, in question. It is denied that plaintiff / appellant was adopted by Shri Shyam Lal. It is further pleaded that Jyoti, who has sold the property to the defendant, was real daughter of Shri Shyam Lal.