SMT. FARZANA BEGUM Vs. PREMDAS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20-2-95, passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, has filed this revision petition under Sec. 115 C.P.C. After admitting the petition, notices were ordered to be issued to the non-petitioners. Non-petitioners were duly served, but, none has appeared. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the non-petitioner-defendant in respect of plot No. 59, restraining the latter from dispossessing her to making any interference in her possession or to create any obstruction in her building activities. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased this plot by a registered sale deed from Geeta Devi on 23-6-93. She has been is, possession ever since. A boundary wall has been constructed and a tin door has also beer installed on the northern side of the plot. Geeta Devi in turn purchased the above plot Iron. non-petitioner Prem Das on 23-7-88 also by a registered deed. The Collector (Land Conversion), issued a joint patta in respect of plots and 59. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants created obstruction when she and her relatives went into the plot. They are also not allowing her to make construction over the wall. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit as well as the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that initially plots 58 and 59 were purchased by Premdas from Ghewarchand and he constructed his residential unit on plot No. 58. However, plot No. 59 was lying vacant, but, he stored his building material on that plot. He challenged that Geeta Devi had no authority to alienate plot No. 59 and if any sale-deed was executed, it was a forged one. When the defendant came to know about such a sale-deed, he immediately lodged a criminal report against Geeta Devi and also filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed.

(3.) The learned trial Court examined the rival claims of the parties and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has got a prima facie case in the sense that she has got a sale-deed in her favour and boundary wall has also been constructed around the plot. The question whether the alleged sale-deed is a genuine or a forged one is a serious question to be tried between the parties.