KANHAIYALAL Vs. RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order dtd. 8/9/2021, prayer of the plaintiff-appellant, for ad interim injunction was refused by the learned trial Court.

(2.) It would be apt to look at the genealogy of the parties and the date and events prior to the suit to appreciate the nature of dispute between the parties.

(3.) One Ladu S/o Jamman died in 1976 leaving behind three sons; (I) Sheola @ Sheo Narain; (ii) Nathu Ram; and (iii) Om Prakash. Nathu Ram and Om Prakash brought a suit under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before revenue court for declaration that property purchased in the name of Shiv Narain by Ladu Ram was from the income of joint family funds and as such was joint family property. Further prayer was that the joint family property in the name of Ladu Ram and Shiv Narain be divided amongst three brothers equally and an injunction be issued restraining the defendant Shiv Narain from dealing with the property or causing obstruction in enjoyment of the same by the plaintiffs. The suit was ultimately decreed by judgment dtd. 22/2/2001 deciding 1/3 share to each of the three brothers in the suit property. Sheo Narain who was defendant in the suit had died during the pendency of the suit and his five sons and a widow were substituted as legal heirs/representatives. Though Sheo Narain had five daughters also but they were not made party in the civil suit. The aggrieved party challenged the trial court judgment in revenue appeal No. 40/2001 under Sec. 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. By the judgment dtd. 30/8/2005, the appeal was dismissed, thereafter, the aggrieved defendant challenged the same in Second Appeal No. 4441/2005 under Sec. 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and this appeal was also dismissed on 19/3/2020.