PRABHU LAL Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the defendant-appellant has challenged the injunction order dated 3.12.2011 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Jhalawar in Civil Misc. Case No. 48/2011 titled Madan Lal and another V. Prabhu Lal and others whereby application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Sec. 151 CPC in a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs has been allowed and further the defendants have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the land in dispute.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the defendant No. 1 is the real brother of the plaintiffs and the defendant after his marriage went to his in-laws' house at Village Bomboliya Mataji where he is residing since last forty years and looking after the properties of the in-laws. Since then, the plaintiffs are cultivating the land in question. Subsequently, on 14.1.2010, the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell his share in the disputed land for a consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the defendant No.1 and the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was to be paid within a period of next two years and on receipt of the said amount, the defendant No.1 was to get the sale deed registered. The plaintiffs therefore, prayed for an injunction that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from interfering with the possession of the land and to continue agricultural operations.

(3.) THE trial court has considered the aforesaid facts and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are still in possession of the land and the fact of giving possession by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2 after execution of the sale deed has not been relied. Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court has come to the prima facie conclusion that there exists prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and further balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs, therefore, in case the injunction is not granted, then the plaintiffs will suffer injury.