RAJKUMAR POKHARNA Vs. SATYANARAYAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 22.04.2014 passed by ADJ No. 1, Beawar District Ajmer in Civil Misc. Case No. 6/2014 titled as Satyanarayan v. Ramswaroop & Ors. under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been challenged in this Civil Misc. Appeal by appellant Raj Kumar who was defendant No. 5 in the Court below and in this appeal notices have been served only upon respondent No. 1/plaintiff Satyanarayan, as prayed by the appellant.

(2.) I have heard arguments of both the parties. Shop No. 18 (Private Number) in Shriram Complex, Vijay Nagar was purchased by a registered sale deed dated 03.01.2014 (registered on 10.01.2014) by the appellant from Ramswaroop S/o. Ramniwas who was defendant No. 1 in the court below Rajkumar claims to be a bonafide purchaser of the said shop but Satyanarayan plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed the suit along with prayer for temporary injunction in which he prayed that he is son of Ramswaroop who was son of late Ramniwas and he submitted that originally the property mentioned in para 1 of the plaint measuring 605.58 Sq. yd. belonged to Ramniwas S/o. Badrilal Pareek and Ramniwas expired 45 years back at Vijay Nagar and then Ramswaroop became the 'karta' of H.U.F. though the plaintiff Satyanarayan and defendant No. 1 to 4 each were having 1/5 share each in the property. Plaintiff Satyanarayan claimed that Shriram Complex consisting of 32 shops on the said property was constructed jointly by plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and it was alleged by plaintiff Satyanarayan that defendant No. 1 Ramswaroop has unlawfully sold shop No. 18 in the said complex to Rajkumar who is defendant No. 5 in the suit. Partition suit was filed by Satyanarayan in the court below along with the prayer for temporary injunction. The trial court accepted the prayer of temporary injunction filed by Satyanarayan and all the defendants were restrained in the manner that till the decision of suit No. 7/2014 none of them will be entitled to alienate the property mentioned in para 1 of the plaint and additionally they were also restrained that they will not make any demolition; modification, conversion, mortgage or create encumbrance on the said property.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 has strongly opposed the argument of appellant and it has been argued by the respondent that Ramswaroop had no right to sell the suit property to the appellant and so before decision of the partition suit appellant has rightly been bound down by the court below not to transfer the suit property without permission of the court along with other restrictions.