MANOHAR LAL JAKHODIA Vs. SHAMBHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court:

(2.) THE contention of the present appellant is that he is the owner of the land and the land is in possession of the present appellant which is situated at village Jakhod, Tehsil Chidawa. Part of the land was donated by Jakhodia Charitable Trust of which the plaintiff appellant is the trustee. Now, the land in question belongs to the charitable trust. The appellant filed the civil suit for cancellation of sale deed along with temporary injunction application which was rejected in spite of the fact that the present appellant is the owner of the land and also the land in possession of the present appellant. Hence this appeal. Per contra, contention of respondents is that the land in question is ancestral land of the present respondents and present appellant has sold the land to Shambhu Dayal in terms of compromise entered in a suit no. 34/2004 titled as Manohar Lal vs Shambhu Dayal decided on 18.3.2011 by court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Pilani. Hence, the court below has rightly rejected the application, the appellant is not having possession of the land and the commissioner reports have been rightly rejected by the court below.

(3.) IT has never been pleaded by the appellant that the Jakhodia charitable Trust is the registered trust and when the trust is unregistered, the bar of section 29 will operate and suit itself is barred under section 29 and the temporary injunction application has rightly been rejected. The other contention of the appellant is that commissioner has specifically stated that the present appellant is having the possession over the land for which the contention of the respondent is that looking to the provisions of Rule 67 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986, the commissioner was not competent to ascertain the fact of possession. Rule 67 of reads as follows: