CHAMPALAL & ORS Vs. CHANDRA DEVI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.2012 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellants' application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against the respondents with the averments in the plaint that Simartha, the grand-father of appellant No. 1 to 5, was the Khatedar of the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 620, measuring 56 bigha 10 biswa, at village Kanodiya Purohitan. Simratha expired in Samvat 2014. After his death, mutation No. 149 was sanctioned in the name of his son Gena Ram.

(2.) However, thereafter name of Bhanwara Ram S/o Rama Ram was entered by the Patwari. When the appellants came to know about the wrong entry in the name of Bhanwara Ram, they filed a suit for correction of entries in the Revenue Court. In relation to that suit, appeal filed by Bhanwara Ram is pending before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer. On the basis of wrong entry in the name of Bhanwara Ram, he sold 28 bigha 5 biswa land out of Khasra No. 620 measuring 56 bigha 10 biswa on 18.12.98 to respondent No.1, Smt. Chandra Devi. On the basis of the sale deed, husband of respondent No.1 threatened the appellants to get possession of half share of Khasra No.620.

(3.) The appellants filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction. The appellants also filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. The application was accepted by the trial court on 30.4.2001; the respondents were restrained from interfering in the possession of appellants on the basis of sale deed. But on 26.7.2011, the husband and sons of respondent No.1 forcibly entered into the disputed land and destroyed the residential house of the appellants, and gave serious beating to the women of the appellants' family. The appellants lodged a FIR with the police, and also moved application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. before the trial court, which is pending. The trial court rejected the suit of appellants by judgment and decree dated 14.12.2011. The appellants filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jodhpur District against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur District. The appellants filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. along with the appeal to restrain the respondents from interfering with the appellants' possession. It was averred that the father of the respondent, Bhanwara Ram, was not the son of Simartha but he was son of Anada Ram, and the name Bhanwa Ram was wrongly entered in the revenue record as successor of Simartha. The wrong entry in the revenue record, bestows no authority on him to sell the disputed land. On the basis of unauthorised sale deed, respondent No.1 has no right to interfere in the possession of the appellants on disputed land. However, vide order dated 17.2.2012, the learned Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal before this Court.