BANTI Vs. MAHESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.1.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1 Bayana, District Bharatpur.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed dated 29.6.2015 executed in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4 by respondent No. 5 and further prayed for permanent injunction on or about 13.7.2015 on the ground that suit property which is in dispute as mentioned in the plaint is an ancestral property and was in the name of Arjun S/o Nanda, grandfather of appellants. Arjun was having two sons, one Genda and Second Lala Ram (respondent No. 5). It is further stated in the plaint that after the death of Arjun-Grandfather of the appellants, 1/2 share of the land was mutated in the name of respondent No. 5 and the appellants have equal share in the disputed property. It was further stated that the respondent No. 5 without taking consent of the appellants and without prior permission of the Court sold the property to respondent No. 1 to 4 beyond his share on 29.6.2015 and executed the sale deed in their favour. After knowing the aforesaid facts, the appellants filed the suit before the trial court. Along with the suit, the appellants have also submitted an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction against the respondents No. 1 to 4. The respondents-defendants filed reply to the said application stating therein that they are bona fide purchasers of the land in dispute and they have purchased the property through registered sale deed and after paying consideration, possession of the same has been handed over to them by respondent No. 5 - Lala Ram.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent No. 5 who is the father of the appellants has no right to sale the land in dispute as the land in dispute is their ancestral property and they have also the legal right in the property. Counsel for the appellant further stated that the learned trial court has decided the temporary injunction application beyond the pleadings of the parties. It is further stated that the property is the ancestral property or not, the issue can be decided only after taking the evidence of the parties. Counsel for the appellants further argued that the learned trial court has decided the temporary injunction application by conducting the mini trial. Lastly, he prayed that the trial court has wrongly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff appellants.