MANJU BHATI Vs. BALKISHAN GUPTA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC is directed against the order dated 09/10/2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Beawar, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application being No.Civil Misc. Case No. 61/2012 (6/2012) of the appellant seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit property, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

(2.) As per the case of the appellant-plaintiff, she was the owner of the suit plots being Nos.14 and 15 situated in Khasra No.573. Her brother Shri Ratan Lal Bhati had taken one loan from the bank, namely, Beawar Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Beawar, in which the respondent No.2 was serving as Manager. It is further case of the appellant that her brother had defaulted in making payment of loan, and the respondent No.2 was pressurizing him for the repayment of said loan, and therefore the appellant, at the instance of her brother, sold out her two plots in question in favour of the respondent No.1, who happened to be the father of the respondent No.2, by executing registered sale deed on 09/05/2012. According to the appellant, she had not received any amount towards the said sale deed, and it was understood between the parties that the sale consideration shall be adjusted against the loan amount of her brother, however, the respondent No.2 did not deposit the said amount in the loan account of her brother, and committed cheating. The suit, therefore, has been filed seeking cancellation of the said sale deed dated 09/05/2012. The appellant-plaintiff had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction in respect of the said suit plots, however, the said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order.

(3.) It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Manoj Kumar Choudhary for the appellant that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had committed cheating with the appellant by not making the payment towards sale consideration in respect of the sale deed, and had also not adjusted the said amount of sale consideration towards the outstanding amount of loan of the brother of the appellant. He also submitted that at the time of registration, the respondent No.1, who was the purchaser, was not present, and the respondent No.2 and the brother of the appellant were present. According to him, in the sale deed also only the photograph and signature of the appellant appear, and there is no photograph and signature of the respondent No.1, and therefore it clearly transpires that there was a cheating committed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2.