ARUNA BANTA Vs. DR.RAJ KAMAL BANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla, in CMA No.790-6 of 2019, filed in Civil Suit No.45 of 2019, titled as Aruna Banta and others Versus Dr. Raj Kumar and another, dated 09.12.2019, vide which an application filed by the present petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been dismissed, as also, the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge (C.B.I.), Shimla, in Civil Misc. Application No.8-S/14 of 2019, titled as Aruna Banta Versus Dr. Raj Kumar and another, dated 25.02.2020, whereby, the appeal filed by the present petitioners against the order of learned Trial Court, stood dismissed by the learned Appellate Court.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioners herein have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs have inherited the suit property alongwith defendants from Smt. Shakuntla Devi, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs and that Will dated 27.03.2015, bearing No.1853 registered at Sub-Registrar, Chandigarh, is illegal, null and void, inoperative qua the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs as the same has not been executed by late Smt. Shakuntla Devi Banta, with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering or changing the nature of the suit property. Alongwith this suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, also stood filed for grant of interim injunction. This application was dismissed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla, vide order dated 09.12.2019, by holding that as the plaintiffs were challenging the Will, which was duly registered and executed, therefore, as except the bald allegation that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, there was no other material on record to substantiate said allegations, the plaintiffs were not entitled for the relief of temporary injunction. Learned Trial Court while returning these findings held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, neither prima-facie case was in favour of the plaintiffs, nor balance of convenience, nor it stood proved on record that in event of denial of interim injunction, the plaintiffs shall suffer irreparable loss. Learned Trial Court took note of the fact that litigation was also pending between the parties before Civil Court at Chandigarh, which fact was not disclosed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed a Civil Misc. Appeal No.8-S/14 of 2019. Vide judgment dated 25.02.2020, the appeal has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court, inter alia, by holding that it was confirming the findings returned by the learned Trial court as the plaintiffs were not having a prima-facie case in their favour as there was nothing on record to suggest that the alleged Will was not a genuine document. Learned Appellate Court held that as the property stood bequeathed by mother of the defendants in their favour, interim relief if any, will have an adverse impact on the true owners of the property, who had inherited the same by virtue of Will in issue. Learned Appellate Court also held that as grant of temporary injunction was equitable and discretionary right and as the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands and had deliberately concealed the fact that legitimacy of their relation with late Shri Pankaj Mohan Banta was in question before a Civil Court at Chandigarh, therefore also, they were not entitled for any relief.