MRUGEN ATULKUMAR TRIVEDI Vs. ABHIJAT PARASHAR MEHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal from Order under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed against the order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad rejecting the notice of motion for interim injunction during the pendency of Civil Suit (CCC) No.1119 of 2018.

(2.) The background facts which has led the filing of the present Appeal from Order before this Court is that a suit property is situated in T.P.Scheme No.3/5 in Final Plot No.709, Paiki sub Plot No. 21 (21/A and 21/B) in Shanti Sadan Cooperative Housing Society Limited, admeasuring 1106 square meters, out of which, undivided half portion of said property is the subject matter of the suit property. The said property was demolished and new construction has been commenced. It has been asserted by the appellant - original plaintiff that this property bearing Plot No.21 of aforesaid society was originally held by grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, and after his death, son's name mutated in record of society and the said property was treated as Paranjayray Vaikunthray Mehd, HUF property. This property after death, as stated above, is transferred in the joint name of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and they became the joint owners and occupiers of the suit property having equal right, title or interest in the suit property.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.J.V.Japee appearing on behalf of appellant - original plaintiff has vehemently contended that there is a serious collusion between the defendants inter se to defeat the interest of present appellant in the property and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the real brothers and taking advantage of his position, as an advocate at Delhi, respondent No.1 has created and concocted the story that his brother and other family members have not dealt with improperly and an impression is sought to be created that he has been duped but in reality, according to the learned advocate Mr.Japee, that these defendants inter se in collusion to each other have made an attempt to defraud the interest of appellant in the suit property. Mr.Japee, learned advocate has further contended that respondent No.1, on the contrary, has specifically admitted the receipt of consideration in response to the transaction namely Rs.11 lakhs, has also not disputed the factum of agreement, being executed between him and appellant with respect to his share, and still however, learned trial Judge has refused to grant interim relief, as prayed for.