- (1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by Kailash S/O Shankar Lal and Tulchhi Ram S/O Shankar Lal against the respondents ­ LRs. of Mohd. Daud and one Mehram S/O Radha Kishan aggrieved by the order of the first appellate court of the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Nagaur dtd.18.8.2012 in appeal No.27/2012 ­ Kailash and anr. V/s LRs. of Mohd. Daud and anr. and appeal No.26/2012 ­ LRs. of Mohd. Daud V/s Kailash and anr, whereby the learned first appellate Court rejected the appeal of the present petitioners ­ plaintiffs Kailash and another and allowed the appeal of LRs. of Mohd. Daud and anr. V/s Kailash and anr. and affirming the order of the learned trial Court passed in temporary injunction application of the plaintiffs dtd.26.6.2012, the learned court below has on the one hand restrained the petitioners ­ plaintiffs ­ Kailash and anr from evicting and dispossessing the respondents Mohd. Daud and Mehram from the land in question, which is 20 bighas and 17 biswas of agricultural land situated in Khasra No.287 in village Budhi, Tehsil and Dist. Nagaur and on other hand, it has also restrained the defendant Mohd. Daud and others not to alienate the suit property further and maintain status quo with respect to the same.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners ­ plaintiffs Kailash and anr., Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate submitted that the land in question was agreed to be sold by Mohd. Daud to Kailash on 10.6.2011. However, conveyance deed in the form of sale-deed could be executed by him only on 14.9.2011, but in the meanwhile, the said Mohd. Daud however, sold the land in question on 21.6.2011 to the defendant No.2 Mehram and therefore, on account of such dispute arising about the title of the property in question, the plaintiffs Kailash and anr. filed the present suit before the learned court below in which the temporary injunction application was partly allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dtd.26.6.2012 and the learned trial Court had directed the status quo to be maintained and the land in question not to be sold further, but in the cross appeals filed by both the parties before the first appellate court of Additional Dist. Judge, Nagaur, the learned appellate court vide order dtd.18.8.2012 while dismissing the appeal filed by Kailash and anr. and allowing the appeal filed by Mohd. Daud and ors. has held that Kailash and ors. will not dispossess the respondent Daud and Mehram from the land in question and while the respondent Daud and Mehram will not further alienate the suit property. He urged that since on 14.9.2011 at that time of execution of sale-deed, the possession of land in question was handed over to the plaintiffs ­ appellants, therefore, the learned first appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners by the impugned order dtd.18.8.2012 and also restrain them and not to dispossess the respondents LRs. of Mohd. Daud and Mehram. He also relied upon certain documents, like FIR filed by LRs. of Mohd. Daud etc. against the present petitioners Kailash and anr. and submitted that the possession of land in question was claimed by Mohd. Daud to be with him and not with Mr. Mehram. He also submitted that the coordinate bench of this Court while entertaining the present writ petition after hearing the learned counsels on caveat, Mr. B.S. Sandhu on 29.8.2012 had granted status quo order in the present writ petition, which deserves to be maintained during the pendency of the suit itself. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are strenuously opposed by Mr. B.S. Sandhu and Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit appearing for the respondents, who vehemently submitted that the sale-deed in favour of Mehram was executed on 21.6.2011 and a note to this effect made in the alleged sale-deed made in favour of the present petitioners on 14.9.2011 and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents were not in possession of land in question, who according to them were put in possession with execution of the sale-deed on 21.6.2011 and therefore, the learned appellate Court was justified in maintaining the status quo as it existed on that day vide order dtd.18.8.2012. They therefore, submitted that interference in such order is not called for in the present writ petition filed by Kailash and Tulchhi Ram, both sons of Shankar Lal.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the impugned orders of the Courts below.;