MOHAMMED SADIQ Vs. ABIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 23.04.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents and has directed both the parties to maintain status quo, the appellants have challenged the same before this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents ('the respondents' for short) filed a suit against the defendants-appellants ('the appellants', for short) for cancellation of sale-deed dated 08.04.2010 which was executed by the appellant No. 3, Abdul Wahid, in favour of the appellants No. 1 & 2, Mohd. Sadiq and Abida Bano, and for permanent injunction before the trial court. In the suit it was stated that land in question measuring 43 X 36 ft. belonged to their father, late Fateh Mohammed. Their father executed a family settlement on 23.04.1991 and gave the said property to the respondents. But on 08.04.2010 the appellant No. 3 has executed a sale-deed of this property in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 & 2. Along with the suit, the respondents submitted an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The appellants filed their reply to the suit as well as to the temporary injunction application. Since both the parties were claiming their possession on the property in dispute, the learned trial court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the site. On 20.04.2010, the Commissioner inspected the site and discovered that the appellants are in possession of the property in dispute. However, vide order dated 23.04.2010, the learned trial court allowed the temporary injunction application, and has directed the parties to maintain status quo. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Anoop Dhand, the Learned Counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that a bare perusal of the alleged family settlement clearly reveals that although the family settlement was allegedly drawn on 23.04.1991, but the stamp was purchased on 19.09.1991 i.e. after six months of the execution and attestation of the said family settlement. Hence, it is clear that the said family settlement is a forged document. According to the learned Counsel, although this objection was raised before the learned Judge, the learned Judge has not appreciated the same and has directed both the parties to maintain status quo.