ASHWIN Vs. KUSUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants, who were arrayed as non-applicants in a petition for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC have preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC to challenge order dated 27th of May, 2019, passed by Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh (for short, 'learned Court below'). The learned Court below, by the order impugned, accepted application of the respondent No. 1 and 2-applicants for temporary injunction.

(2.) The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that at the threshold one Keshu Ram filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Smt. Jamna, inter-alia, claiming the reliefs that he may be declared owner of the properties mentioned in the suit and requisite entries made in the name of Smt. Jamna on the strength of Will dated 28th of March, 2007 be declared as null and void. During pendency of the suit, Keshu Ram died and his legal heir respondent No. 3 was brought on record. Being close relative, good senses prevailed on the parties as both of them were aunt and nephew, and therefore, the dispute was amicably settled by way of compromise on 4th of October, 2018. The compromise eventually led to decreeing of the suit on 6th of October, 2018. Later on, respondent No. 1 and 2 claiming to be grand-daughters of Late Shri Keshu Ram plaintiff, preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 7 and 13 CPC along with application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. In the application, it is inter-alia averred that in the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, after death of Keshu Ram, notices were issued to them but they were served on mother as they were residing at their mother-in-laws' house. In want of knowledge, both the respondents could not appear before the learned Court below and respondent No. 3 Bherulal entered into compromise with Smt. Jamna. It is further averred that the compromise was entered into by taking advantage of illiteracy of Smt. Jamna, who was unaware about surviving legal heirs of Keshu Ram, i.e. both respondents No. 1 and 2. After passing of decree, third respondent transferred the property by a registered instrument in favour of appellants by accepting huge amount of consideration. It is further averred that appellants have demolished the existing structure and now raising construction over the disputed land. Besides filing application under Order 9 Rule 7, 13 CPC and Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is also filed for impleading appellants as party to the suit. That apart, respondent No. 1 and 2 also claimed temporary injunction against the appellants.

(3.) Although learned trial Court accepted application of the respondent No. 1 and 2 under Order 9 Rule 7 and 13 CPC as well as under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and set aside ex parte decree but their application for impleadment of appellants remain undecided. However, pending consideration the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the learned trial Court also heard, arguments on application for grant of temporary injunction filed by respondent No. 1 and 2 and by the impugned order granted injunction in their favour directing the appellants to maintain status quo regarding the suit property.