- (1.) THE appeal has been filed by the appellant-original plaintiff against the order dated 19.1.2012 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Beawar District Ajmer(hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') in the Civil Misc.Case No.167 of 2011 in Civil Suit No.164 of 2011, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
(2.) THE appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking cancellation of registered sale dated 26.11.2011 executed by the respondent No.1, who happens to be the father of the appellant in favour of respondent No.6. Pending the said suit, the appellant had moved an application seeking temporary injunction against respondent-original defendants, which application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order. It has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No.1 who happens to father of the appellant had forged the will in the name of his wife Shanti Devi and he had sold out the said property to the respondent No.6. According to him, appellant had a share in the said property and therefore the respondent No.1 could not have sold the same to the respondent No.6. Mr.Asopa also submitted that the respondents-defendants be directed to maintain status quo as regards the suit property pending his suit otherwise it would result in multiplicity of the proceedings. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it transpires that the respondent No.1 happens to be the father and respondents Nos 2 to 5 happen to be the brothers and sisters of the appellant. The respondent No.6 is the purchaser who has purchased the said land in question from respondent No.1 in consideration of Rs.40 lacs by executing the registered sale deed on 26.11.2011. The said sale deed is sought to be cancelled by the appellant-plaintiff on the ground that the respondent No.1 had no authority to sell the same. There is no substance in the submission made by learned counsel Mr. Asopa for the appellant that the respondent No.1 had forged the will in the name of his wife Shanti Devi who was the original owner of the said property. It transpires that the said Shanti Devi who was the mother of the present appellant and wife of respondent No.1 executed the will dated 26.5.1992 in favour of her husband i.e the present respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 had become the owner of the said property. The respondent No.6 having purchased the same by registered sale deed from the respondent No.1 and the appellant having failed to establish any prima facie case in her favour, the trial court had rightly rejected the application of the appellant-plaintiff seeking temporary injunction against the respondents. There being no illegality or infirmity in the said order passed by the trial court, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed in limine.;