DHANPAL SINGH Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dt. 22.04.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 44/2008, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner -plaintiff and confirmed the order dt. 24.05.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Misc. Case No. 22/2007. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 -defendants for restraining them from dispossessing the petitioner -plaintiff from the suit plot. It has been alleged by the petitioner -plaintiff in the suit that late Shri Manroop Singh was the common ancestor of the parties, who was the owner of the disputed plot. Chhatusingh, one of the son of late Shri Manroop Singh, had adopted Jagmal Singh, and the said Jagmal Singh had adopted Ranjeet Singh, whereas Jeevan Singh, another son of late Shri Manroop Singh, had adopted Ganga Singh and the said Ganga Singh had adopted Dhanpal Singh i.e. the present petitioner -plaintiff. According to the petitioner, on. the partition of the properties of Shri Manroop Singh, the disputed plot had come into the possession of Ganga Singh, and the petitioner having been adopted by the said Ganga Singh, he had become the owner and occupier of the said plot, however, the respondent -defendants were interfering with his possession of the disputed plot, and therefore, suit was filed. The petitioner had also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction of similar nature. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court, against which an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court, and the said Appeal has also been dismissed by the Appellate Court vide the impugned order.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Vinod Kumar for the petitioner that the petitioner being the owner and occupier of the plot in question, the respondents -defendants had no right to dispossess the petitioner, and that both the Courts below have committed an error in not granting the temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, it appears that the Courts below have not believed the prima facie case of the petitioner, however, the Courts below have also not recorded any finding as regards the possession of the plot in question. The ownership of the said plot also appears to be in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, however, it is directed that both the parties shall maintain status -quo as regards the possession and alienation of the suit plot, pending the suit. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.