DHEERAJ KUMAR NEBHNANI Vs. BHAVNA NEBHNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals involving similar subject matter arise out of the orders dt. 31.05.2015 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 5, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Misc. Applications Nos. 30/2013 and 31/2013 filed by the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, whereby the trial Court has allowed the said applications granting temporary injunction against the respective appellants. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant and the respondent No. 2 are the sons of the respondent No. 3 -Jai Prakash Nebhnani, and the respondent No. 1 -Smt. Bhavna Nebhnani is the sister -in -law (Bhabhi) of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has filed two separate suits for cancellation of the two separate sale deeds dt. 26.04.2012 executed in favour of the appellants respectively. In the said suits, it has been alleged inter -alia that the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff had purchased Plot No. A -1 situated at Hariom Colony, Nayapura, Kota on 23.10.2008 by executing a registered sale deed. According to the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff, the respondent No. 3 had got her signatures on the blank stamp papers, which were misused by him as if the plaintiff had executed the powers of attorney, and the agreements to sell in favour of appellants. According to the plaintiff, subsequently, the appellant Dheeraj Kumar executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 2 -Vishal Kumar Nebhnani, in respect of the part of the suit property and the said Vishal Kumar executed sale deed in favour of the said Dheeraj Kumar Nebhnani in respect of the other part of the suit property. The respondent No. 1 -plaintiff, therefore, filed two separate suits for cancellation of the said sale deeds, and also filed the applications seeking temporary injunction pending the said suits. The said applications have been allowed by the trial Court vide the impugned orders dt. 31.05.2013. The appellants, in both the appeals being aggrieved by the said orders have filed the present appeals.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. B.L. Agarwal for the appellants that the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has not denied her signatures on the power of attorney as well as the agreement to sell, and therefore, prima facie it could not be said that she had not executed the said documents. He further submitted that the impugned orders are contradictory in nature inasmuch as on the one hand the trial Court believing the possession of the appellants has restrained them from carrying out any construction over the suit property, and on the other hand has restrained the appellants from causing obstruction in the possession of the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned orders passed by the trial Court, it appears that the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has not denied her signatures on the alleged powers of attorney, and the agreements to sell, though according to the plaintiff, her signatures were obtained by the respondent Nos. 3 on blank papers. However, according to the appellants the respondent No. 1 after receiving full amount of consideration had executed the said powers of attorney and the agreement to sell. Be that as it may, there being triable issues involved in the suit which could be decided after the evidence is led in the suits, it would be in the fitness of the things, if both the parties are directed to maintain the status -quo during the pendency of the suits filed by the respondent -plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the appeals are partly allowed by directing the parties to maintain the status -quo as regards the constructions, alienation and possession in respect of the suit property pending the suits. Considering the facts of the case, the trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suits.