SHANKAR LAL Vs. DURGA SHANKAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff, challenging the judgment & decree dated 18.03.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil Appeal No.35/04 (35/04), whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment & decree dated 05.03.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.45/1999.

(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of the land in question. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Choudhary for the appellant that though the respondent No.2 was directed to maintain the status-quo as regards the suit land, in the earlier suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff seeking specific performance for the agreement dated 17.03.1988, the respondent No.2 had executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 on 12.08.1996, committing breach of the said temporary injunction order passed in the earlier suit. Therefore, according to him, the said sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.1 was liable to be cancelled. However, the learned counsel Mr. Bhandari for the respondents submitted that the respondent No.2 was neither restrained nor was aware of the interim injunction order passed by the court in the earlier suit, and therefore both the courts below have rightly held that the sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.1 was valid.

(3.) In the instant case, it appears that both the courts below have concurrently held against the appellant-plaintiff, and in favour of the respondents-defendants that the appellant-plaintiff had failed to prove his right in respect of the land in question. It is pertinent to note that though the appellant had filed the suit against the respondent No.2 Bhonri Lal seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 17.03.1988, the said suit was dismissed by the trial court, and the appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the first appellate court. The second appeal being No.243/2011 filed by the appellant before this Court has also been dismissed today by a separate order. The appellant-plaintiff having failed to prove his right over the suit property and having also failed to prove that the respondent No.2 had executed the sale deed in question in favour of the respondent No.1 in violation of the temporary injunction order passed by the trial court in the earlier suit, the Court does not find any substance in the present appeal. There being no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.