BALA Vs. ANITA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid appeals have arisen from the order dtd. 21/2/2023 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the trial Court') in Civil Misc. Temporary Injunction Application No.35/2022 titled as 'Smt. Anita Agarwal and Anr. Vs. Smt. Bala and Ors.' and in Civil Misc. Temporary Injunction Application No.05/2023 titled as 'Smt. Bala and Ors. Vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal and Anr.'.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had filed an application under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for granting succession certificate and respondents had filed an application under Sec. 276 of Indian Succession Act for granting probate in which temporary injunction applications were filed by both the parties. The trial Court vide order dtd. 21/2/2023 had decided both the temporary injunction applications. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that both the parties had prima-facie case. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that Dilip Kumar Chokhani (husband/father of the appellants) was doing business in the name of M/s Chokhani Gas Service, Nawalgarh in which Dilip Kumar Chokhani was a proprietor and his brothers Girdhari Lal and Jyoti Swaroop were helping him in doing business. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the respondents wrongly stated that the appellant No.1-Smt. Bala and Dilip Kumar Chokhani had no cordial relations and litigation was pending between them. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the trial Court in its order while considering the prima-facie case admitted the fact that the appellants were doing business after the death of Dilip Kumar Chokhani. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that Dilip Kumar Chokhani had not executed any Will in favour of respondent No.1-Smt. Anita Agarwal and respondent No.2-Girdhari Lal Agarwal because said Will was challenged by the appellants before the trial Court and the trial Court had sent the said Will for FSL examination in which signature of Dilip Kumar Chokhani was found forged one, but the trial Court wrongly relied upon the private FSL report which was produced by respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the trial Court while deciding the temporary injunction application, granted relief which was to be given at the time of final adjudication. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the respondents did not have prima-facie case. So, order of the trial Court to the effect that the respondents would participate in the business as a partner and a joint account be opened in this regard may be set-aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the following judgments'-(1) Rupali Mehta Vs. Smt. Tina Narinder Sain Mehta reported in 2006 (6) Mh.L.J.; (2) Suresh Sharma Vs. Dhanwanti Sharma in D. B. Special Appeal Writ No.548/2022 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6089/2019 decided on 7/5/2022;(3) Ramchandra Ganpatrao Hande alias Handege Vs. Vithalrao Hande and Ors. in Appeal No.797 of 2010 decided on 29/3/2011.