GIRISH KUMAR Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Sec. 104 CPC, appellant-defendant has assailed order dt. 1st of June, 2018, passed by Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, by the order impugned, has partly allowed application of the respondent plaintiffs under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction in a suit for cancellation of sale-deeds and perpetual injunction. In this matter, the plaintiff-respondents have also filed cross-objection and have prayed for granting relief in toto as prayed in the application filed by them under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit against appellant-defendant and others before the learned trial Court for cancellation of sale-deed dt. 5th of June, 2006 in favour of appellant as well as sale-deed dt. 27th of February, 1999 in favour of proforma respondent No. 6 and prayed for permanent injunction. As per the version of respondent-plaintiffs, the measurement in the sale-deeds towards western side is shown erroneous as the same has been depicted in the instruments 43 ft. instead of 13 ft. and the total land sold was 239.55 sq.ft. and 166.22 sq.ft. With these averments, it is prayed that the sale-deeds be cancelled and declared hull and void. Apart from the relief of cancellation of sale-deeds, respondent-plaintiffs also prayed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from raising any construction beyond 13 ft. land and creating any third party interest on the land in question. The suit is contested by the appellant by filing written statement denying all the averments.

(3.) Alongwith the plaint, on behalf of respondent-plaintiffs an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed for temporary injunction. The application for temporary injunction is contested by appellant and the learned trial Court after hearing arguments of rival parties by the impugned order partly allowed the application for temporary injunction. The learned trial Court, by the order impugned, restrained the appellant from raising construction towards western side of Plot No. 69 beyond 13 ft. and maintain status quo regarding construction as per the report of Commissioner. It is further ordered that the appellant may not alienate the property in question so as to create third party interest.