HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (AT: JAIPUR)
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 5.3.2016 passed by trial court, whereby, application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of Temporary Injunction, was dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the land-in-question is ancestral property of the plaintiffs. Hence, Hari Prasad (their father) could not sell the entire property without the consent of the plaintiffs.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the trial court has rightly dismissed the application for Temporary Injunction. In-fact, sale deed with regard to the half of the property owned by Hariram @ Hariprasad was executed in favour of the respondent No.1 on 20.6.2001. Seller Hariram @ Hariprasad died in the year 2003. However, the suit-in-question has been filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2012 seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No.1 on 20.6.2001. Purchaser is in possession of the suit property after the execution of the sale deed in his favour.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.