Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants -plaintiffs, being partly aggrieved by the order dated 26th May, 2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Application No. 76/09, whereby the trial court had partly allowed the application of the appellants -plaintiffs filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The appellants -plaintiffs have filed the suit against the respondent -defendant seeking partition and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. Pending the suit the appellants had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants from the suit property and also for restraining the defendants from transferring and selling the suit property. The said application was resisted by the respondent and the trial court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, partly allowed the said application of the appellants by restraining the respondent from dispossessing the appellants from the suit property without following the due process of law, however rejected the other prayers of the appellants -plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said order, to the extent of not granting the other prayers, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants -plaintiffs.
(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma for the appellants that the trial court should have restrained the respondent from transferring or alienating the suit property pending the suit, otherwise it would create the multiplicity of the proceedings. He also submitted that late Shri Rampal Saini, husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3, was adopted by late Shri Rampratap, husband of the respondent Radha Devi, and therefore, the appellants have the half share in the said property alongwith the respondent. However, the learned counsel Mr. O.P. Mishra for the respondent has vehemently submitted that the appellants had not produced any document to show that the Rampal was ever adopted by the husband of the respondent. According to him the trial court having rightly considered the merits of the case, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the appellants -plaintiffs had failed to prove their prima facie case as regards the adoption of late Shri Rampal Saini by late Shri Rampratap, who happened to be the husband of the respondent Radha Devi. It is needless to say that the appellants -plaintiffs in order to seek equitable relief were expected to produce all the material documents and evidence to prima facie satisfy the court about their rights in the suit property. The trial court having rightly considered the prima facie case against the appellants, and in absence of any document to show the adoption of late Shri Rampal Saini by late Shri Rampratap, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;