Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appellant -original plaintiff has filed the first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2012 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2007 whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit of the appellant seeking specific performance of two agreements dated 26.4.2005 and 29.9.2006 allegedly executed by the original defendant No.1 deceased Krapal Singh and also seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 5.7.2006 executed by the said Krapal Singh in favour of the respondent No.2 Smt. Jetuni. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr.Sudhir Jain for the appellant that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties in proper perspective and that since the appeal has been admitted, the respondent No.2 is required to be directed to maintain status quo as regards the property in question. However, learned counsel Mr. LL Gupta for the respondent no.2 has vehemently submitted that the appellant -plaintiff had committed fraud on court and the trial court after discussing in detail the evidence adduced by the parties, had come to the conclusion that the appellant -plaintiff had failed to prove his case. Mr. Gupta submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was false and frivolous, and having been rightly dismissed by the trial court, no interim relief as prayed for be granted.
(2.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and for the respondent No.2 and to the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court, it appears that the original defendant No.1 Krapal Singh had already executed a registered sale deed on 5.7.2006 in favour of the respondent No.2 Smt. Jetuni -original defendant No.2 in respect of suit property. It further appears that one suit was filed by the daughters of said Krapal Singh claiming partition and their share in the suit property, in which the said Krapal Singh had filed written statement admitting the execution of the sale deed in favour of the present respondent No.2. Accordingly, the said suit was dismissed by the trial court. Thereafter, son of the present plaintiff, Shri Arif had also filed another suit seeking declaration alleging that the said Krapal Singh had mortgaged the suit properties by executing mortgage deed dated 6.6.2006 in his favour. The said suit was also dismissed for default by the trial court. Thereafter the present suit appears to have been filed by the present appellant -original plaintiff alleging that the agreements dated 26.4.2005 and 29.9.2006 were executed by the said Krapal Singh, for which specific performance was sought. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it clearly transpires that the suit was filed by the appellant -plaintiff by way of frivolous litigation and therefore the trial court had rightly dismissed the same. The trial court has also held that the respondent no.2 is in possession of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the original defendant No.1 Krapal Singh. In view of the said finding of the trial court, and in view of the fact that the appellant has failed to make out any prima facie case in his favour, this court is not inclined to grant interim relief in favour of the appellant as prayed for. In that view of the matter, the application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;