RATTU Vs. MALA
LAWS(RAJ)-1968-1-18
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on
January 31,1968
RATTU
Appellant
VERSUS
MALA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SIVAKAMI ACHI V. NARAYANA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]B F VARGHESE VS. JOSEPH THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
KARRI TARAKESWARA RAO VS. TINITI JAGANNADHAM [LAWS(APH)-2003-11-121] [REFERRED TO]RAM KRISHAN VS. BEHARI LAL [LAWS(J&K)-1973-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. PRABHU NARAIN SINGH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2003-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRASINH HARBHAMJI JADEJAS HEIRS VS. MANSUKHLAL PREMCHAND MEHTAS HEIRS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
CHHAGAN LAL JAISWAL THROUGH LRS. POORAN CHAND JAISWAL AND OTHERS VS. KAMAL CHAND JAIN THROUGH LRS. GULAB BAI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2006-8-105] [REFERRED TO]
SARIF AND ORS. VS. BATUL AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-144] [REFERRED TO]
PRANAB KR SARKAR VS. BASANTI RAY [LAWS(CAL)-1986-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
MANRAJ VS. RAMESHWAR [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
LALCHAND VS. MAHABIR PRASAD [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
BACCHU VS. BEERWAL [LAWS(MPH)-2014-12-78] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR VS. CH. RAM SARAN VAKIL [LAWS(ALL)-1971-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
PROMAL KUMAR SARKAR VS. BASANTI ROY [LAWS(CAL)-1986-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR GOENKA VS. M.P. GRIH NIRMAN MANDAL [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-169] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED VS. VALECHA ENGINEERING LIMITED [LAWS(HPH)-2020-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
DASHMESH BHATTA COMPANY VS. VAJINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THIS is a revision application by one Rattu, plaintiff, against an order of the Civil judge, Jhunjnunu, directing him to be detained in civil jail for a period of one month and further directing attachment of the property to the extent of Rs. 500 under Order 39, Rule 2 (3), C P. C. for disobedience of an order of injunction. This order was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge Jhunihunu.
(2.)LACHHMAN defendant No. 2 is the owner of some agricultural and nonagricultural properties. He executed a gift-deed in respect of all his properties in favour of Malaram defendant No. 1. The present suit was instituted by Rattu plaintiff for a declaration that the gift-deed in favour of Malaram is null and. void and he is the adopted son of Lachhman. During the pendency of this suit on the application of Malaram the trial court passed an order restraining Rattu from interfering with his possession over the properties in suit. This injunction was also confirmed by the learned District Judge on appeal. After the appeal of Rattu against the order of temporary injunction was dismissed he forcibly dispossessed malaram from the agricultural land in suit. He was proceeded against by the learned Civil Judge.
(3.)THE first contention an behalf of the applicant is that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or to pass an order of temporary injunction, at any rate in respect of the agricultural land.
;
(2.)LACHHMAN defendant No. 2 is the owner of some agricultural and nonagricultural properties. He executed a gift-deed in respect of all his properties in favour of Malaram defendant No. 1. The present suit was instituted by Rattu plaintiff for a declaration that the gift-deed in favour of Malaram is null and. void and he is the adopted son of Lachhman. During the pendency of this suit on the application of Malaram the trial court passed an order restraining Rattu from interfering with his possession over the properties in suit. This injunction was also confirmed by the learned District Judge on appeal. After the appeal of Rattu against the order of temporary injunction was dismissed he forcibly dispossessed malaram from the agricultural land in suit. He was proceeded against by the learned Civil Judge.
(3.)THE first contention an behalf of the applicant is that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or to pass an order of temporary injunction, at any rate in respect of the agricultural land.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.