- (1.) Aggrieved by the grant of temporary injunction vide order dated 04.01.2011, passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhunjhunu, the defendant-appellant has approached this Court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffsrespondents, Geeta Devi and others, had filed a suit for partition against the defendant-appellant. Geeta Devi had claimed that Jhabar Mal, her father-in-law, had three sons, namely Chiranji Lal, Narottam and Deendayal. Her fatherin- law had bought a property, namely a Nohara. After his demise, the said property had devolved on the three sons. Since she and plaintiffs-respondents No.2 to 7 happen to be the legal heirs of Chiranji Lal, they are entitled to partition of the property. Along with the suit, she had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
(3.) On the other hand, the defendant-appellant had pleaded that although the said property was bought by Jhabar Mal, Chiranji Lal had separated himself from the family a long time ago. Moreover, Jhabar Mal had left a will. According to the will, the said Nohara was to be given to the defendant-appellant and his brother, Deendayal. Thus, because of the said will Chiranji Lal and his legal heirs were ousted from inheriting the said property. Moreover, even on an earlier occasion in 1995, the plaintiffs-respondents had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and declaration. However, vide Judgment dated 12.10.2006, the said suit was dismissed. In the said suit, the defendant-appellant had also raised the plea about the existence of a will. Therefore, the present suit is not only hit by the doctrine of res judicata, but most importantly, the plaintiffs-respondents have not challenged the veracity of the will. Hence, they have accepted the will.;