MANOJ Vs. CHANDRAKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who have filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners of Shop No.169/1, admeasuring 220 sq.ft. in Survey No.18/1, Nazul Sheet No.7D of Tumsar, District Bhandara, and the defendants have no right to the said property. A decree for permanent injunction has also been claimed, restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The plaintiffs have also filed an application Exhibit 5 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession over the suit property. A further order of temporary injunction is also claimed restraining the defendants from executing the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1996.

(3.) The respondents are the original defendant Nos.1 to 5. One Smt. Nandrani Devi, widow of Shalikram Chaurasia, along with the respondent No.1 Chandrakishore, the respondent No.3 Bhushankumar, the sons of said Shalikram and the respondent No.4 Ku. Vinita, a daughter of said Shalikram, were the owners of the suit property. The respondent No.1 Chandrakishore along with his daughter Smt. Kirti, the respondent No.2, filed Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1996 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for restoration of possession of the suit property in which Smt. Nandrani Devi, the respondent No.3 Bhushankumar, the respondent No.4 Ku. Vinita were joined as the defendants. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent No.3 Bhushankumar sold the suit property to the petitioners/plaintiffs by a registered saledeed dated 2951998. Hence, the petitioners/plaintiffs were also joined in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1996 as the partydefendant Nos.3A and 4 respectively.