JAGDISH SINGH Vs. MOHANLAL AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'), has been preferred against the order-dated 29/8/2011 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Suit No. 11-A/08, whereby the appellant was restrained from getting any sale-deed concerning the suit lands registered and also from transferring or alienating the lands in any manner. Admittedly, the lands belonged to Smt. Aruna Kumari Singh, who died intestate on 3.2.2006. The suit has been filed by respondent no. 1 impleading the appellant and the other respondents as defendants, for declaration of title in respect of the lands and permanent injunction. It is based on a Will said to have been executed by Smt. Aruna Kumari in favour of the plaintiff on 6.1.2006. An application, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code, was also moved for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant no. 1, who is claiming title on the basis of another Will purported to have been executed by Smt. Aruna Kumari Singh only on 22/1/2006, from alienating or transferring the suit lands in favour of any one as well as from interfering with his possession on the lands.

(2.) While opposing the prayer, the appellant has asserted that the Will executed in his favour is genuine as he is related to Smt. Aruna Kumari as nephew of her husband whereas the respondent no. 1 belongs to an altogether different caste. Reference has also been made to the fact that his name has already been recorded as Bhumiswami of the suit lands in the corresponding revenue records. According to him, being an old and sick person, he has executed a sale-deed on 10.8.2011 in pursuance of an agreement dated 1.8.2011 in favour of Neeraj Gupta, Mayank Kesharwani, Durgesh Pandey, Neeraj Pradhan, Gyanendra Shukla and Avin Sharma and has also handed over possession to them but, registration of the sale-deed has been deferred on a technical ground.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the trial Court has committed serious error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order as, on the facts as highlighted above, the rights of the plaintiff were sufficiently protected by the doctrine of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He is further of the view that no specific additional ground for issuance of the temporary injunction is made out.