INDRAKALI Vs. SITRANIYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Singrauli in Civil Suit No. 10- A/2011 whereby the application of temporary injunction filed on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants has been rejected, this appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that plaintiffs who are the daughters of first defendant Mst. Sitraniya have filed the present suit for a declaration that they are having 1/6th share in the ancestral property and the first defendant is not having exclusive title upon the suit property and, therefore, the sale deed dated 17.10.2011 executed by her his null and void against the plaintiffs; the suit property be partitioned and a decree of separate possession be passed. A decree of injunction has also been sought against defendants no.1 and 4 i.e. Mst. Sitraniya and Surendra Kumar Chaturvedi that the first defendant may not alienate any part of the suit property without getting it partitioned to defendant no.4 or his wife defendant no.3 or to any other person and should not interfere in the possession.

(3.) THE written-statement as stated by learned counsel for the parties is yet to be filed. Although a reply of temporary injunction application has been filed be defendants no.1 to 3. In para 10 of the reply it has been averred by them that at present they are not selling any part of the suit property. THE other averments made in the plaintiff's application have been denied.