JAGDISH Vs. GIRDHARI LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant- non-applicant (for short 'the non- applicant') against the order dtd. 29/4/2023 passed by Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2019 (49/2018, 80/2018), whereby the temporary injunction filed by the respondent No. 1-applicant (for short 'the applicant') has been allowed.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant submits that the trial court wrongly allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the applicant. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that disputed property was purchased in the name of Shyola on account of eldest son of the family. That property was purchased from joint Hindu family income and not from personal income of Shyola. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that three sons of the Ladu Ram had executed the partition deed dtd. 11/10/1980 in which they clearly stated that the disputed property was joint Hindu family property. They filed a suit for partition before the Revenue Court. Revenue Court passed the decree on 3/6/1995. The said decree was challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority and Revenue Appellate Authority remanded the matter to Sub Divisional Officer, Amer to decide the matter afresh vide order dtd. 13/11/1996. After that, SDO, Amer passed the decree on 22/2/2001. The said decree was also challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 30/8/2005. Order dtd. 30/8/2005 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority was further challenged before the Board of Revenue and the said appeal was also dismissed on 19/3/2020. The said order was not challenged before High Court. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant, also submits that the trial court while deciding the prima facie case wrongly came to the conclusion that questions whether the said partition deed was valid or not and being unregistered is admissible in evidence or not and whether disputed property was purchased by Shyola from his personal income or not, would be decided after taking the evidence.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the non-applicant also submits that Shyola himself admitted this fact in the partition deed as well as before the Revenue Court that disputed property was joint Hindu family property.