RAMSWAROOP Vs. RAJULAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant assailing the order dated 06/10/2015 passed by the trial court by which the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit before the trial court along with temporary injunction application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC against the defendants-respondents. It was pleaded in the temporary injunction application that the land bearing Khasra No. 1692 Rakba 2 Biswa; Khasra No. 1692 Rakba 2 Biswa and Khasra No. 2580 Rakba 18 Bigha 10 Biswa situated in village Udai Kalan, Tehsil Gangapur City was recorded in the Khatedari of Isar S/o Jemla and after death of Isar, Khatedari equally devolved in the name of Ranjeeta and Moti and after death of Moti, Khatedari of his 1/2 share of the land, was recorded in the name of his sons i.e. the plaintiff-appellant herein (Ramswaroop) and Raju Lal (defendant No.1) equally i.e. 1/4th share each. It was further pleaded that thereafter the plaintiff-appellant was adopted by Ranjeeta and after death of Ranjeeta his 1/2 share in the Khatedari land devolved upon the plaintiff-appellant and thus he became Khatedar of ⅓th share of the land while the defendant No. 1 became Khatedar of 1/4th share in the land and they both were cultivating the land accordingly for last more than 37 years on their 3/4th and 1/4th share in the land respectively and the land was not yet partitioned and was still undivided. It was further pleaded that the defendant-respondent No. 1 in a fraudulent and illegal manner, recorded 1/2 share of the land in question in his name whereas he had only 1/4th share in the land in question. It was further asserted that revenue suit is also pending before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Gangapur City in between both the parties wherein status quo order was passed which is still in force but even then, in order to cause loss to the plaintiff-appellant, despite pendency of the revenue suit and status quo order being in operation, the defendant-respondent No.1 sold the disputed land through registered sale deed dated 20/04/2012 to the defendant-respondents No. 2 & 3 and the said sale deed, being collusive and void in nature, is not binding on the plaintiff-appellant and now in the garb of the said alleged sale deed, the defendants-respondents are bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant and raise construction on the disputed land and to further sale and alienate the same.

(3.) The defendants-respondents No. 1 to 3 filed reply separately to the temporary injunction application contending that after death of Isar, mutation was attested in the name of Moti being adopted son of Isar on 27/02/1978 and Ranjeeta had no concern with the disputed land and after death of Moti, the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent No. 1 have equal share in the land in dispute.