MAHAVEER Vs. OMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Sec. 100 of Civil Procedure Code, assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 30/3/2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.2/2021 by Additional District Judge, Nenwa, District Bundi, whereby plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction has been allowed and appellants- defendants have been restrained not to dispossess the plaintiff from the house in question and not to interfere in his possession nor to sale the property in question to any other person.

(2.) Counsel for appellants-defendants has vehemently argued that learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit vide judgment and decree dtd. 10/4/2010 and Appellate Court committed jurisdictional error and perversity in passing the decree for permanent injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff and against appellants-defendants. Counsel for appellants has argued that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and he could not have instituted civil suit against his adopted father during his lifetime. Counsel for appellants submits that suit property was self-acquired property of Mukut Bihari and he has executed a will in favour of Hanuman who is son of brother of Mukut Bihari. Counsel for appellants submits that on the basis of will dtd. 6/6/2006 executed by Mukut Bihari in favour of Hanuman, Hanuman is the owner of suit property and decree for permanent injunction has been passed against appellants including Hanuman is bad in law and without jurisdiction.

(3.) Heard. Considered.