UMMED SINGH Vs. MURTI BHAGWAN SATYA NARAYAN JI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC by the appellant -plaintiff challenging the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Tonk, (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Misc. Application No. 18/2010, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the appellant seeking temporary injunction. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Smt. Sunderbai was the absolute owner of the property in dispute, who had allegedly adopted one Shri Sobhagmal. As per the case of the appellant, the said adoption was subsequently cancelled by her and thereafter she allegedly had executed a will in favour of one Smt. Gopi on 28.12.1967. It is further case of the appellant that after two months of the execution of the said will, the said Smt. Sunderbai expired. The said Sobhagmal executed a registered gift deed in favour of the respondent -defendant on 26.11.1979, and by virtue of the said gift deed, the respondent -defendant had filed the suit being No. 115/1984, against the father of the appellant -plaintiff Shri Banney Singh seeking his eviction from the suit premises under the provisions contained in the Rent Control Act. The said suit was decreed by the court on 05.03.1990, against which the first appeal was filed by the father of the appellant, which also came to be dismissed on 07.03.2001. It appears that during the pendency of the second appeal, Smt. Gopi in whose favour Smt. Sunderbai had allegedly executed the will, sold out the disputed property to the appellant -plaintiff through a registered sale deed on 07.05.2001. The second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court on 01.10.2007, however while dismissing the second appeal the High Court observed that the observations made by the Court in regard to the sale deed dated 07.05.2001 will remain confined to the said proceedings only and will not affect the rights of the defendant for any other remedy. The appellant -plaintiff therefore filed the separate suit against the respondent -defendant seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The appellant also sought the temporary injunction seeking stay of the execution proceedings of the earlier suit being No. 115/1984. The said T.I. application filed by the appellant has been dismissed vide the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Praveen Jain for the appellant that the appellant had filed the suit pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court while dismissing the second appeal and till the suit filed by the appellant -plaintiff was decided, the execution proceedings of the earlier suit were required to be stayed, in order to avoid further multiplicity of the proceedings.