- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This F.A.F.O. challenges the order dated 21.3.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Mathura in O.S. No. 721 of 2008, jagdish Bankey Lal v. Chandrabhan and others, whereby temporary injunction application No. 7 Ga of the plaintiff/appellant has been rejected. The relevant findings recorded by the Trial Court in the order dated 21.3.2012 reads thus: Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that before the Trial Court, the plaintiff/appellant had fully established his prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and injury with regard to entitlement of grant of temporary injunction, but the Trial Court has failed to consider the same. He further submits that since the plaintiff/appellant is co-owner/sharer of the suit property, the defendant/respondents cannot be permitted to alienate the suit property; that if the defendant/respondents are left at liberty, they would sell off the suit property creating third party rights; that the WILL which is sole basis of claiming absolute right over the suit property, is a forged, fictitious document.
(2.) It is further contended by Counsel for the appellant that the WILL in question was never executed by Late Smt. Gopi Bibi and the same was unregistered and purportedly bear the signature of Shri J.P. Garg, advocate.
(3.) Learned Counsel for respondent has not been able to reply to the query of the Court that if the Court below comes to the conclusion that property in dispute is joint property of the plaintiffs how would the 1/20 share of the property claimed by the plaintiff, would be given to him as observed by it in the judgment, and in that case if property is transferred by the respondent solely as owner to third parties, how could the 1/20 property be returned to him.;