RAM BALWANI Vs. GEETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of CPC arises out of the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in T.I. application No. 16/2012 filed in the Civil Suit No. 210/2012, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the said T.I. application of the appellant-plaintiff.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Late Shri Mangla, who happened to be the husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 had executed an agreement to sell the suit lands in favour of the appellant on 14.04.2006, after receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs. 15 lacs, however after the death of said Shri Mangla, the present respondents are bent upon alienating and selling the suit lands to the third party. According to him, the agreement to sell though unregistered document could be received in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act and that the appellant is also ready to pay the deficit stamp duty along with penalty required under the Rajasthan Stamps Act. According to him, if the interim injunction as prayed for is not granted, it will result into the further multiplicity of the proceedings.

(3.) In the instant case, it appears that the appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 14.04.2006, in the year 2012, after the death of late Shri Mangla, who died in the year 2008. It also appears that the said agreement was not got registered. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant-plaintiff, during the life time of the said Mangla or thereafter up to filing of the suit had taken any steps or given any notice calling upon the respondents to execute the sale deed. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly observed that the appellant had failed to prove prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also in the favour of the respondents. It is needless to say that any transfer or alienation of the suit lands is made by the respondents defendants during the pendency of the suit, the same shall be subject to the result of the suit. However, the appellant-plaintiff having failed to prove any prima facie in his favour, he is not entitled to any injunction as sought for in the application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of CPC.