KISHAN LAL Vs. BHAJIYA ALIAS VAJERAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the orders dtd. 5/4/2019 (Annex.5) and 5/8/2024 (Annex.6) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Mavli, District Udaipur and learned Additional District Judge No.4, Udapur respectively, whereby the learned trial court as also the appellate court have concurrently rejected the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking restraint order against the respondents/ defendants not to interfere in the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the land in question and maintain the status quo of the site and record; and allowed the counter claim filed by the respondents No.2 to 4.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/defendants and along with the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction to the effect that the respondents/defendants be restrained from interfering the possession of the petitioner over the land in question and also sought a direction to maintain status quo with respect to site and record as well. In the application, the petitioner/plaintiff claimed that the respondent No.1/defendant was the recorded Khatedar of land comprising Aaraji No.1802 ad- measuring 2 Bigha and 8 Biswa (Barani-II) of revenue village Bajainagar, Patwar Mandal Naharmagra, Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur. The defendant No.1 sold the land in question to the petitioner/plaintiff in the year 1997 and received the amount of consideration and also executed an agreement on a hundred rupees stamp on 22/8/2007 under his signatures and the possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff further stated that after the petitioner/plaintiff was put in possession of the land in question, the petitioner constructed boundary wall towards northern side of the land, installed gate and towards southern- eastern side, fencing was also raised. The petitioner/plaintiff also constructed his house and obtained electricity connection in his name. In the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the petitioner/plaintiff further stated that later on, the defendant No.1 sold the land in question in favour of respondents/defendants No.2 to 4 and after execution of the sale-deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4, formal partition was done.

(3.) In the application seeking temporary injunction, the petitioner/plaintiff further stated that after coming to know of the sale-deed being executed by defendant No.1 fraudulently, the petitioner submitted a complaint, upon which FIR was also registered, wherein after thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the defendant No.1 for offence under Sec. 420 of IPC. It was further stated that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the land in question, which is 'Abadi land' since 1997, however, on the basis of sale-deed executed in favour of defendants, their names have been recorded in the revenue record as Khatedar(s). The petitioner/plaintiff further stated that since the land in question has been recorded in the names of defendants, therefore, they are interfering in the peaceful possession of the land in question and want to evict the petitioner. The petitioner thus submitted that he is in possession of the land in question since 1997, therefore, balance of convenience lies in his favour. The petitioner thus prayed that the respondents/ defendants be injuncted from interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the land in question and a direction for maintaining the status of the site and record be also issued.