RAJ KUMAR Vs. RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiff -appellant (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') seeking modification of the order dt. 26.02.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the trial Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to suit property as also restrained the defendant -respondent (hereinafter 'the defendant Raghunathdas') from alienating, mortgaging or creating any third party rights in the suit property or making any construction therein such that no physical alteration in the suit property brought about. It has been prayed that the learned trial Court while restraining the defendant also ought to have issued directions to the defendant Raghunathdas to part with 1/3 rent received from the suit property or otherwise required him to deposit the same in the Court to safeguard the purported interest of the plaintiff in the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) NO one has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant Raghunathdas has submitted that the plaintiff's suit for partition, mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property claiming it to be ancestral property was wholly baseless, purely speculative and without any foundations. The learned counsel for the defendant Raghunathdas has relied upon a registered will dt. 29.3.1938 in favour of the defendant. He submitted that for the last over seventy years the defendant Raghunathdas has been availing rents from the tenants in the suit property. It is also submitted that a part of the suit property coming to the defendant Raghunathdas under the will dt. 29.3.1938 was sold by him in the year 1960 the said instrument was signed by late Shri Gopinath father of the defendant Raghunathdas as a witness and also identifying him as the seller. It is submitted that the impugned order dt. 26.2.2013 has also been challenged by the defendant in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1263/2013 to the extent it has restrained the defendant.