(1.) Challenge in this Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is to the order dtd. 27/4/2013 passed below Application Exh. 6/7, in Civil Suit No. 343 of 2020, by which, the learned Chamber Judge, City Court, Ahmedabad, pending the suit proceedings, refused to grant ad-interim injunction in relation to the suit property.
(2.) The appellants - original plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition, possession, permanent injunction and declaration with respect to suit land. The plaintiffs are legal heirs of one Hasumatiben Laxmanbhai Shalugar. The grandfather of Hasumatiben namely Lallubhai Shalugar, was the owner of the suit land and after his demise, the property devolved by inheritance and later on, sons of Lallugar Shalugar became owner. After sad demise of Laxmanbhai, his share devolved by inheritance to the surviving daughters i.e. Parvatiben and Hasumatiben. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, name of Hasumatiben was mutated in the rights of records with the authorities and she was co-owner of the suit land with other heirs i.e. defendant nos.1 (1/1/1 to 1/1/5) and 1/2 (1/2/1 to 1/2/4). In such circumstances, it is alleged that, Hasumatiben was having half share in the suit land and after her demise, the plaintiffs by inheritance and succession, entitled to share in the suit property. It is in this background facts, it is averred in the plaint that, despite the status of co-owner of the deceased Hasumatiben, the defendants being a maternal uncle, behind the back of the deceased, sold out the suit property by way of registered sale deed in the year 2010 to defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 2 in turn sold it out by way of registered sale deed dtd. 19/9/2017 to defendant no. 3 and lastly, defendant no. 3 had sold the suit land by way of registered sale deed dtd. 14/8/2020 to defendant no. 4.
(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order impugned, the original plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.