FAKIRA RAM Vs. HARNEK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anooopgarh Camp, Gharsana District, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellants' application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit for declaration of power of attorney and sale deed as null and void. Along with plaint, they also filed an application for temporary injunction. THEy claimed that agricultural land in Chak NO.16A Tehsil Anoopgarh in Square No.299/449, 301/449 and 300/49 measuring 24 bighas 6 biswas was alloted in 1974 in favour of their father, Shri Budh Ram. Ever since the allotment, their father and after him, the appellants have the possession of the said land. In 1999, the respondent, Dr. Surendra Yadav and Dr. Ramesh Yadav asked the appellants to vacate the land as they claimed that the land was allotted to them. According to the appellants, the respondent and other persons joined hands and prepared a forged power of attorney of their father in 1987, and got it registered. But the fact remains that their father had died in 1986 itself. It was further averred that on the basis of the said power of attorney, the respondent, Surendra Yadav, executed a sale deed on 27.04.1987 in favour of one Pema Ram. THEreafter, Pema Ram sold the land to one Harnek Singh. It was further averred that when the appellants came to know about the forged power of attorney, they filed a FIR. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet.

(3.) CONSIDERING the fact that the appellants are no longer in possession of the land in dispute, considering the fact that the names of the respondent and Perma Ram have already been entered in the revenue records, considering the fact that they have submitted a death certificate dated 28.03.2012 which is subject to evidence which would be led in the trial Court, the appellants neither have a strong prima facie case, nor balance of convenience, nor can they claim that irreparable loss would be caused to them in case the respondent were not stopped from alienating the property further. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Judge is legally justified in dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC.